Talk:List of breakout characters

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

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 articles Lists Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Guild of Copy Editors This article was copy edited by a member of the Guild of Copy Editors.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles

This article was nominated for deletion on 19 September 2012. The result of the discussion was keep.

1. Thing from Fantastic Four you'll need to cite this
2. Seth Cohen from The O.C. you'll need to cite this
3. Fire Marshall Bill from In Living Color you'll need to cite this — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uncle G (talk • contribs) 10:42, 27 July 2006

These last two use the same cite. Daniel Case 04:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. Stiffler in American Wedding you'll need to cite this
2. Eddie in Barbershop 2 you'll need to cite this
3. Joy in My Name Is Earl you'll need to cite this
4. Baby Sinclair in Dinosaurs you'll need to cite this
5. Ralph Cifaretto in The Sopranos you'll need to cite this — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uncle G (talk • contribs) 10:42, 27 July 2006
6. Mr. Spock in Star Trek — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.148.42.175 (talk • contribs) 09:51, 28 July 2006
7. The Punisher in Amazing Spider-Man
8. Opus in Bloom County
9. Luke Spencer on General Hospital — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asat (talk • contribs) 08:38, 21 November 2006
10. Frasier Crane on Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.210.90.106 (talk • contribs) 16:58, 19 December 2006
11. Timon and Pumbaa from The Lion King — Preceding unsigned comment added by D4S (talk • contribs) 15:24, 1 May 2007
12. Sasami from Tenchi Muyo! (if anime is also considered) — Preceding unsigned comment added by D4S (talk • contribs) 02:26, 24 May 2007
13. Mimi Bobeck in The Drew Carey Show. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.139.226.34 (talk • contribs) 07:31, 30 May 2007
14. New York from Flavor of Love (if reality is also considered) — Preceding unsigned comment added by D4S (talk • contribs) 04:30, 1 June 2007
15. Venom from Spider-Man — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leocomix (talk • contribs) 17:57, 28 July 2007
16. Thunderstrike in Thor. Thunderstrike was outselling Thor by two or three times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leocomix (talk • contribs) 18:07, 28 July 2007
17. Miles O'Brien from Star Trek: The Next Generation and Star Trek: Deep Space Nine. Like Worf, the character went from a bit part to having episodes focused around him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RDalton (talk • contribs) 22:32, 9 October 2007
18. [[Gomer Pyle (as in U.S.M.C.) from The Andy Griffith Show. He was so popular with fans that the writers kept bringing him back, and eventually he got his own show. Well, go-o-l-l-l-y! --Jessemckay (talk) 14:36, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Not the Mama!", haha, totally agree on Baby Sinclair. I also reckon Dr. Zoidberg from Futurama is a contender. Gemfyre (talk) 13:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not forget Tommy Oliver. Mack-the-random 01:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about Elle Bishop from season 2 of Heroes. She was probably the break out character of the show. I mean she went from only going to be in 8 episodes to being bumped to 13 episodes(ofcourse she didn't even get to do her orginal 8 episodes). You could also maybe include Adam Monroe from season 2 also. But Elle was the bigger of the two new characters. Plus many people have said that Elle became there favorite character. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.37.137.237 (talk • contribs) 23:34, 7 May 2008

What about Samantha from Sex and the City? Sure, she was one of the original four, but she definitely stole Carries thunder on several occasions. And it's obvious that she (or rather her sexual adventures) became synonomous with the "sex" part of SATC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Helenem81 (talk • contribs) 18:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have sources on that? What's obvious to you may not be obvious to other people. And "stealing Carrie's thunder on several occasions" isn't the same as "stealing the series" as Urkel did. Daniel Case (talk) 02:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly think this list needs Barney from How I Met Your Mother. =) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.139.219.116 (talk • contribs) 06:50, 3 December 2008

I think it would be appropriate to note the irony that Sondra Clark was a breakout character on 227 outshining the star Marla Gibbs, considering many people consider Marla Gibb's character Florence to have been a breakout character on The Jeffersons outshining the stars of that show, and making her a big enought star to lead a series (227). MatthewBrooklyn (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:17, 3 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Frasier was in no way a breakout character in "Cheers" - in fact, in a fan poll when the show ended, he was came second to last in the list of characters viewers wanted to see in a spin-off. Of course he completely defied those odds when "Frasier" became a smash hit, but that doesn't change that he was by no means the lead star of "Cheers". Smurfmeister (talk) 20:55, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could Falstaff be considered a breakout character? The article says little about it, but if memory serves he became so popular that Shakespeare pretty much wrote The Merry Wives of Windsor around him because the public demanded a Falstaff vehicle, even though the character was already officially dead? Daniel Case 16:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing when I read this, but, it's such a stupid article I wouldn't even know where to begin to redeem it by discussing how Shakespeare was pressured into writing an entire play just for what was to him a disposable character, making Falstaff perhaps one of the earliest "breakout characters" in English literature (but no doubt there were others that someone more versed would know). --Free-world (talk) 17:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have to limit ourselves only to references in which the actual term "breakout character" is used, or can we go with one where it says "X was intended to be the main character of the show, but Y took over it after audiences clamored for more of the character."? Daniel Case 04:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I like to the list of "breakout characters," if the definition is to include "a specific audience chosen, unintended focal character" then the list can and should remain intact as it is and people can continue to add to it and make it larger. If the definition is "intended short term" then the focal point is too narrow and it would shrink the list. I would like the under construction to be removed from the top of the article as well. I think this list can and should be tied to fan fiction. I have read many books and watched many programs and thought to myself, "I wish someone could create spin-off content for that character." After all, one of the goals of wiki and many wiki readers is to grow the site, grow the knowledge, and grow public understanding of our world. --Stevenbrimer (talk) 07:13, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do consider the term to embody both definitions; however in the first instance, the "breaking out" happens only when a peripheral character like Fonzie becomes an integral part of the show, or what was originally an ensemble show gets retooled so one popular character is the main character (IOW, what has not happened on Modern Family, no matter how popular Phil, or Cam, or Gloria or Jay have gotten).

As for your second point ... unlike TV Tropes, whose more extensive list is here, we don't consider individual works of fan fiction notable unless they've been published by a third party (like, say, Star Trek: The New Voyages (in which case it's not quite fan fiction anymore, really). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18:52, 13 January 2012 (talk • contribs)

I found a source characterizing Spike as a breakout character, and Klinger I'll keep since it refers to his being added as a regular and is consistent with similar (unsourced, I know) info in the main Klinger article (and I'm not really sure how you cite that). But Miss Piggy I have tagged as it is sourced neither here nor in the main article. It sounds like it would have to refer to some interviews with the show's producers, and I can't find it online.

If it is not sourced in a week, I'm parking it here. Daniel Case 02:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure how to reference it correctly, but the history of Miss Piggy can be seen in the Season 1 DVD set of The Muppet Show. The text commentary points out her appearence (as just another female pig) and points out where her first karate chop was, etc. ColinBlair 21:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see what you mean. I've had things from DVD commentary that I've thought of adding, too.

Someone should look and see if any of the major citation styles (MLA, APA, Harvard) have developed a way of citing DVD commentary. If not, we'll have to find one ourselves. Daniel Case 13:28, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I love The Simpsons and The West Wing (and woe be unto the executive who decided the last season of the latter needed to compete with the former), but Homer and Donna? Dan (Homer's voice) is the first person credited. If anything, it would be correct to say that Bart was the breakout character that eventually settled into his current role as non-breakout. And Donna, while originally a minor role, was never dominant in or identified with the series. Again, there's a much stronger case to be made for President Bartlet, who was originally supposed to be an occasional character, but eventually became the best-known character in the show. However, perhaps it would be best to just leave the two Barts out of the article and focus on obvious breakouts like Urkel and The Fonz. Calbaer 21:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have tagged that as needing a source, though on the whole I agree with the interpretation. In the Ullman Show shorts and the first episodes, Homer was a much more genuinely paternal character and Castellanata (who comes first in the credits only because they're in alphabetical order) even used a deeper voice. He was originally supposed to be the classic sitcom dad and more of a supporting character. The idea of turning him into a scheming boob/drunken fool came later. Daniel Case 23:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The first short, "Good Night" would seem to undermine this assertion. There he is dumb and he is the most-seen character. As I said, calling him a "break-out" is a stretch; Homer was no Urkel or Fonz. And, if I'm not mistaken, the credits are not alphabetical, but in order of characters' age (for the four Simpsons voices), then alphabetical (for the two remaining main voices). Cartwright (Bart, who you argue as being the main character) and Azaria are both credited after Castellaneta (Homer). If Homer was supposed to be a supporting character, there's no way Castellaneta would have first credit. Calbaer 23:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't directly claim Bart was the main character, although I shouldn't have used "supporting character" (Of course, our own article says "He is, alongside his son, Bart, arguably the show's biggest star and most well known character"). What I recall was that early episodes were built around, or intended to be built around, the Simpson family as a group. No one character was intended to stand out.

Of course, Bart did first and dominated the show for a few seasons, then Homer started getting in on the act (to the point that fans began to complain). So he may be sort of a secondary breakout character. Daniel Case 05:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not that some of those changes might not be valid, but they were sweeping enough that I think they should be discussed here.

• However you feel about the use of the term "jumping the shark", I don't feel that's sufficient grounds to pull it from the article, not least when that is frequently cited as a reason TV shows jump the shark.

• Klinger isn't a breakout character? It's true he wasn't in the movie. But my understanding of the show's history is that he was supposed to be a one-note drag joke but he became a fully fleshed-out character.

• You may have removed that Snoopy reference because it was to a blog comment. Fine. But it was the only one I could find that described Snoopy as a breakout character. I am trying to keep everything in this article sourced (not perfectly, I admit) so it doesn't get crufty. I would really prefer to have the source even for such "everybody knows this" things as Snoopy. Daniel Case 22:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt Strong Bad is a breakout character, but I would not say that he is the main character. I mean, it's still HomestarRunner.com. Although SBemail is the most frequently updated part of the site, Homestar is still the main guy. --Savethemooses 06:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True, but there's no web cartoon section of this page. WPjcm^{Words are cool} 17:38, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Mary Jane Watson was introduced in The Amazing Spider-Man as a flighty rival of Gwen Stacy for the affections of Peter Parker. However, Mary Jane's energetic and confident personality drew considerably more reader interest than expected and she evolved into one of the central supporting characters of Spider-Man." I don't believe MJ is a breakout character. There are SO many "others" that have not been noted - why MJ? Only thing I can think of is a Todd fan. Not being a troll. Just don't think she is not a breakout character. She was never featured in her "own" comic. I remember a couple Spider-Man comics which she was featured in but I don't think her name was selling the comic. She is NOT synonymous with Spider-Man. I love her, too. But she's not a breakout character. Not sure about this tilde stuff but i'll try Dathanandstuff 04:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC) dathan[reply]

While she's not a breakout character in the strictest sense, her role was expanded because her popularity with the fans. And she has become an important character in the Spider-man Mythos, so for that, I would leave her on the list. 4.235.156.82 17:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

She is now featured in her own comics (Mary Jane mini-series 1 and 2 and Spider-Man loves Mary Jane) as well as two novels by Judith o'Brien. She was also the first love interest in the movies and Ultimate Spider-Man (and the cartoons?) even though she was not in the original comic. Having displaced all other love interests and become the wife in a series where girlfriends used to abound is a breakout. --Leocomix 18:04, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Worf certainly got more screen-time than he was initially supposed to, but he was certainly not any of the following: "most popular, talked about, and imitated." Makgraf 06:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem (I really have to sit down and do some cleanup on this). Daniel Case 17:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know I read somewhere, perhaps in TV Guide, that Worf was originally written for a couple of episodes but because he became so popular with the fans, he was written as a regular. Michael Dorn would later go on to play the character for over 10 years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gospelprchr (talk • contribs) 03:58, 4 May 2011

Not really. David Gerrold had conceived in the early 1970s that, if there were to be another Star Trek, he would have a Klingon as a crewmember. Since he more or less ghostwrote the TNG series bible, we can assume Worf was always intended to be a main character. Daniel Case (talk) 05:08, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's already a lot of examples on the list (almost too many), but one that I think should probably be on there is Jack Sparrow. He was just a character in the first movie, but since so much of the success of it hinged around him, the next two made him the star character (with one of the taglines for PotC2 being "Jack is Back"). Does anyone think it'd be a good idea to add him? ShadowMan1od 22:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He wasn't "just a character" in the movie, he was obviously one of the leads. Do you think they would pay an actor 10 million dollars to take the role of a minor character? Do you also believe they would give the part of a minor character to a major actor? Maybe if it was a cameo, but in Curse of the Black Pearl Johnny Depp has a lot of screen time and dialogues. And who's on the foreground on the poster? Jack Sparrow. I think he has absolutely nothing to do in this list. sanjuro (talk) 10:40, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think he qualifies at all, especially the way he's described in the article. He would be a breakout character if he was a minor character in the first movie and expanded in the second or third, but instead he was a minor character in the original script and expanded into a major one once an actor was cast. He should be removed from the list. (Btw, yes they would pay pots of money to a major actor for a minor part - check out Marlon Brando in Superman for example. But in this case, he's clearly a major character.) Pearce.duncan (talk) 19:29, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely! Minor part and minor character, that's not the same thing. It's not like if they had paid Brando a fortune to play some random Metropolis guy Superman helped out. sanjuro (talk) 11:38, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been battling with myself whether or not to add Dick Grayson. He evolved from just Batman's sidekick, to one of the most popular heroes in the DC Comics. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.235.171.231 (talk) 16:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I say "do it." D4S 00:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you can add he became part of the Teen Titans, who were the best-selling DC title in the early 80s. (part of the definition for me is that a breakout character becomes more popular than the original feature or takes on a far greater role than originally conceived) --Leocomix 18:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like now, more than ever, people are starting to add more and more secondary characters. Ralph Biggum is certainly not a breakout character. Neither is Fred Fred Burger.

Lionheart08 23:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably a good sign that I should do another purge and pull everything uncited off the page. Daniel Case 01:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I just did this. I pulled everything that doesn't at least claim "X was originally intended to be a side thing" and liberally slapped {{fact}} on much that didn't. In a couple of weeks I'll pull the uncited stuff if there are no citations forthcoming. Daniel Case 04:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

She's a very obvious candidate. Should there be a "Reality" section added? — Preceding unsigned comment added by D4S (talk • contribs) 05:21, 18 April 2007

Oh, HELL NO. The introductory sentence reads: "A breakout character is a character in serial fiction, usually stories involving an ensemble cast, who becomes more prominent, popular, discussed, and/or imitated than was originally intended or expected." People on Reality TV are real people and are not characters in serial fiction, so Reality TV has no place here. JustinTime55 (talk) 22:03, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please get an impartial mod to fix this article. So many of the entries are fanboy nonsense it's ridiculous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.150.36.30 (talk • contribs) 03:55, 22 April 2007

I think part of the problem is that we need to apply a clear, universal definition for "breakout character." Many impartial online dictionaries do not provide a clear definition for the term. TV tropes describes a breakout character as one who originally is given a relatively insignificant role, who subsequently "steals the show." [1] Daniel Case (talk) 23:30, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the problem, perhaps, is that the entire concept is fanboy. I've just seen this for the first time and I think it combines the worst of juvenile obsessiveness and obscure trivia. 72.179.63.75 (talk) 02:18, 26 April 2012 (UTC) Eric[reply]

The concept may be fanboy originally, but it's made its way into legitimate TV discourse, so its origins are moot. Daniel Case (talk) 02:33, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I took the definition used in the lede from an academic talk. TVTropes is a fun and sometimes insightful site but we don't consider it a reliable source. The problem is that there seem to be two popular understandings of the term:

• the intended one as quoted above, a character who like Alex Keaton or Urkel either steals the show outright from its intended lead or, like Stewie Griffin, becomes a regular part of the show from originally being intended to be just a minor part.
• a character in an ensemble show, like Blake Lively, who becomes the most popular with audiences even though the show never changes to make them the lead.

Contributors to this page use both, and I've sort of resigned myself to that, even though (as I've noted before) it was meant for strictly the first sense. Daniel Case (talk) 23:30, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should we add Don Patch from Bobobo-bo Bo-bobo? He is more popular among the fans. Or at my request, you can list any character from said show as a breakout character. Just as long as they are a breakout character. 68.205.128.200 20:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Breakout characters aren't necessarily the most popular. It's more about if their role increased from said popularity or if they receive their own spinoffs. D4S 07:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but is Don Patch a breakout character? 68.205.128.200 22:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possible entry? while Jack was originally considered the lead character of the show, i think the series is focusing more on Locke these days as the latter part of Series 3 has shown, he's certainly being featured more than Jack. Amongst the shows fans he's certainly the most popular as well while Jack divides opinion sharply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.169.135 (talk • contribs) 23:41, 4 May 2007

Locke has always been one of the main characters, and I don't think he gets much more screen time than anyone else. I'd say Ben Linus is more of a breakout character, as he was originally only going to be in a few episodes and not the leader of The Others. - LeonWhite 01:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Three times in the last couple of weeks people have added Cartman as a breakout character. I have not seen a source referencing this, and some edits don't even try, so I keep taking it out.

The Cartman article itself says:

As the anti-hero of the four leads, Cartman was never intended to be the focal point of the series.[citation needed] After the show premiered, however, his outrageous and shocking behavior made him instantly popular with viewers.

I have added a {{fact}} tag to the first sentence ... if a reliable source is found and cited there, it can be included here. I do recall that Cartman became very popular very quickly ten years ago when the show was new. But I seem to also recall that Parker and Stone had actually spent a lot of time trying to figure the character out before the show, and I doubt they were surprised by his success. Nor does the writing seem to have shifted to him at the expense of the other characters.

Kenny was also as popular as Cartman in the early days, too, since he died so humorously in every episode.

So, I will keep reverting this until someone provides a source and writes it properly. Daniel Case 03:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He's not a breakout character, this article is filled with bad examples from people who don't understand the actual definition. Those lines even contradict the definition of a "breakout character", who begins as a minor character while the writer admits Cartman is one of the four leads. How can a lead character be a minor character? Nonsense. sanjuro (talk) 10:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll quote the article itself: "A breakout character is a fictional character in different episodes, books or other media (TV, comics, literature, games, etc.) that becomes the most popular, talked about, and imitated." Randy Marsh does not fit this description. Cartman does. Its absurd to put Randy March in as a breakout character, other fringe characters also have episodes dedicated to them, such as towelie, and butters.

As the anti-hero of the four leads, Cartman was never intended to be the focal point of the series.[citation needed] After the show premiered, however, his outrageous and shocking behavior made him instantly popular with viewers. Doesn't this prove that he is a breakout character? Also, Cartman is not a lead; Stan is. The show focuses mainly on him. Cartman is by far the most popular character on the show. To state another character is a breakout and not him is ludicrousness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.62.109.225 (talk) 03:01, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The whole page says citation needed even though that will never happen. I love this site. Citation needed indeed. Utils 06:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, every once in a while I just clear that stuff off. And look at the citations we already have. Never say never. Daniel Case 12:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good boy. Utils 04:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen a page basicly full of those. ^{[citation needed]} Mack-the-random 00:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added these two characters to the list. Are they good additions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.230.233.220 (talk • contribs) 02:47, 8 June 2007

Boba Fett seems like a good addition to me, but I think Hiro Nakamura is far more of a breakout character for Heroes, and you just glossed over him. Hayden Panatierre may be on the covers of magazines (she is a photogenic young lady), but almost every article I have read regarding Heroes has mentioned Masi Oka, and a fair number of them have been about him exclusively. That said, I am not sure that either of them are true breakout characters. While the Petrelli storyline is central to the story, both characters have had a great deal of screentime from the very beginning, and I don't think they were ever intended as minor roles.

About five of those are notable. It was bad enough that I actually got to the article through a bizarre statement that Stewie was a breakout character on Family guy, but breakout characters in Heroes? After one season, which was written prior to being aired? This needs severely trimmed to only include truly appropriate examples. Chris Cunningham 12:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which five? Could you elaborate?

Actually, Stewie is one of the ones that's adequately sourced. I'll probably have to do another purging, then remove the tag. Daniel Case 13:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any links how to create a breakout character in any way or something that character needs to become such a breakout character? If so, place them at the external links section. --Bryan Seecrets 13:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm ... well ... I'm not sure if you really can create a breakout character; the whole point of the concept is that a character becomes a much bigger part of the show than anyone ever expected. But something like that should really go in wikibooks, if someone ever decides to write a guide to television writing there. Daniel Case 21:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, creating breakout characters in films. But there is one simple way of doing this, just create a well-rounded and well-detailed character other than the main ones. That does sound right? --Bryan Seecrets 17:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How could this list not be considered original research? Isn't any such list bound to be subjective anyway? --  timc  talk   16:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was created originally as a way to resolve the bitter deletion battle over "Fonzie syndrome". "Breakout character" was determined to be a more accurate and less fan-ish term in wide use among television writers and critics, and the phenomenon of characters becoming more popular than originally intended or expected on television series is certainly well-known enough to be encyclopedic. While a number of current entries (ones that won't survive a forthcoming purge) are indeed subjective, there are more than enough that can be and have been sourced to maintain a respectable list. Daniel Case 17:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"A breakout character is said to have many characteristic traits."

Like what? This really needs examples. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.61.82.210 (talk) 03:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Daleks turned out to be pretty big. I remember they were introduced really early in the series. Then, a whole bunch of books came out about them (independent of the Doctor Who stories). And still with the new series, everyone associates Daleks with Doctor Who. If someone else agrees that they're significantly "Fonzie" enough to add to that (already pretty long) list in the article, please do! 123.51.3.24 11:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, Not the darleks, not the Autons, the Cybermen, the Sontarans, the Zygons, the Sea Devils, the Silurians, the Ice Warriors, the Wirrn, the Yeti, the Master. None of these are above and beyond what they were when they were first written. The Darkels pretty much are the ones that made the doctor the only one of his species and are big..I doubt they will be bigger or have the show revolve around them. And that is why they are not 'breakout' characters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Puppy Zwolle (talk • contribs) 10:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have rewritten the beginning of this article that (as noted before) is horrible. It started with a specific example (tv-related) and went on in that same area. In the listing also comic characters and other characters were mentioned. I stated the more general 'definition'and left the rest almost 'as is' because...well what can one man do?--Puppy Zwolle (Puppy) 10:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to object to the claim that Bill Goldberg was a "breakout character" in WCW and/or the world of professional wrestling. More often than not, wrestlers become breakout stars when not many would have ever considered them main eventers. Other than Goldberg, a great example of this is Stone Cold Steve Austin. He lingered in WCW for many years only garnering a United States Championship (a second-tier title in the federation), before signing with the WWF and absolutely exploding in popularity. There are many wrestlers over the years that have gone on to great popularity after only being given minimal consideration by either the managements of professional wrestling companies or by the fans themselves. Shawn Michaels, Bret Hart, Mick Foley, Triple H, and Eddie Guerrero, amongst others, weren't considered top-tier talents in the first few years of their professional careers, and have since gone on to be some of the biggest stars in wrestling history; some are Hall of Famers. While Goldberg and Austin are arguably the only ones that have really transcended the business, I don't think one can simply consider Goldberg to be THE breakout character of WCW, when it's obvious that he was one of many. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.144.165.73 (talk • contribs) 22:28, 5 December 2007

Just checking in to say that I think Slimer deserves a spot on this list, I tried to make his entry impartial, although it may need an edit or two. I think he fits well with the break out character type, primarily due to the television series being renamed so he got top billing, he's also recieved more merchandise and more air time than any single Ghostbuster. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LSWSjr (talk • contribs) 03:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Fonzie.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While he didn't become the focus of the show, Butters has gone from a very minor character to the fifth main character (actually, he's more present than Kenny is these days) - should he be on the list? Tredanse (talk) 11:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I second this, although I know it's an old post. I was going to edit it in but couldn't find sources I felt would work, however, Butters is absent for the first three seasons, but is shown to be in several newer episodes, so I also question how much I'd need references, considering his change is a lot more noticeable than the other characters. JohnVMaster (talk) 21:49, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should he really be on this list? After all, he was always a main character. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rakaha (talk • contribs) 12:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Klinger is actually a good example - Farr's character was initially a joke designed for one episode, then he advanced to a recurring one after positive reviews and finally became a regular cast member appearing in almost every episode later on. Towards the end of the series, he even replaced Radar in the pivotal role of a company clerk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.234.61.252 (talk) 18:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is a notable progression, but one not too unusual in a long running series with an essemble cast from which key personnel depart. Kliger was never a breakout character who dominated the show, he just progressed in popularity. In later seasons the original point of the character (outrageous drag) was not a feature of the character. Format (talk) 20:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think he should be added, Mimi Bobeck from TDCS is on here for the same reason Klinger should be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheMovieManiac (talk • contribs) 16:52, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Roast beef and Ray from Achewood? www.Achewood.com Are they significant enough to be included on this list? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seanpatnaude (talk • contribs) 04:48, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The strip is notable, so if it can be sourced, yes. Daniel Case (talk) 14:12, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added Death, the comic book character, with a reference. Now however the bottom of the article has disappeared for some reason I don't understand. Sorry!  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 14:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC) It's okay now.  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 14:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised he's not in the list... In The Silence of the Lambs he was just a psychiatrist advising Clarice Starling on finding the serial killer "Buffalo Bill" -the intented principal antagonist. Hannibal Lecter became such a famous character that most people who haven't seen Silence of the Lambs would be surprised to find out that his screen time in the entire film is just over 16 minutes. Thomas Harris's 1999 follow-up novel, Hannibal, was the first of his three Lecter books to feature the character as its principal antagonist, which considering the success of Hopkins' performance, came as no surprise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.194.176.102 (talk) 13:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to remember the Simpsons really focusing on Bart early on, switching to Homer later as his blundering made him more popular than (or equal to) Bart. Am I wrong on this? --141.110.81.156 (talk) 19:28, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to add Bender from Futurama, another Groening show. --141.110.81.156 (talk) 19:30, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From the Nancy Cartwright article: "Bart quickly became the show's breakout character and was one of the most popular characters on television in what was termed "Bartmania".[25][26][27][28] Bart was described as "television's king of 1990",[29] "television's brightest new star"[30] and was named "entertainer of the year" by Entertainment Weekly.[31]" So is Bart the breakout character, or is Homer? "Seem[ing] to remember" is no encyclopedic. JZelazny (talk) 05:10, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This whole article is a hopelessly unencyclopedic mass of WP:OR and opinion. The list serves no purpose whatsoever. The article should be reduced to just the (cited) definition of the term, with (cited) mention of the first use of the term, and one or two examples of other characters to whom the term has been applied (cited).-- 98.108.196.153 (talk) 06:54, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added Elmo, Vegata and Piccolo in the breakout character article because they are breakout characters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.80.177.24 (talk) 05:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Says who, you? Please people, stop violating WP:OR -- 98.108.196.153 (talk) 06:56, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'd consider Elmo to be a breakout character, because he wasn't even there at the start. But I'm not sure whether or not he was a supporting character before he took over the show. --Morbid Duck (talk) 17:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Neville Longbottom of the Harry Potter books is at all a good example of a breakout character. Several characters are introduced or presented more closely as that series goes on, and Neville's changes of character are mostly part of his growing up - from 11 to 17 years. Neville is not a major character in any of the Potter books, not actively participating in the last book until the last quarter - where in fact all of the surviving characters appear. It would be just as correct - or incorrect - to attribute breakout status to Ginny, Molly, or Bill Weasley, none of whom are more than briefly mentioned in the first book. Sponsianus (talk) 20:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neville makes a hell lot more sense than Dean Thomas. Dean Thomas gets about two lines worth of introduction in every book, how is he considered a breakout character in any sense? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.132.1.23 (talk) 14:38, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's one with an actual citation, if people think it merits a mention: http://the-op.com/view/article.php?sect=2900&a=37 George Bluth on Arrested Development was originally only supposed to appear in the pilot, and presumably spend the rest of the series in prison and therefore off-screen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.111.56.243 (talk) 02:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From the A.A. Milne's books to the Disney franchise Tigger went from reasonable obscurity to major part of the storylines. Though that could be because of a change of ownership of the characters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.73.8.118 (talk) 04:24, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should Chuck Bass from the Gossip Girl TV series be mentioned? His character was a recurring character in the books and had no full plot-lines in the series until the fourth episode and it wasn't really his, and he did not gain another one until the seventh episode and it wasn't really his plot-line either. But fan-demand for Chuck lead to him becoming a more prominent character and the show now revolves more around him. Shouldn't he be added? --204.210.122.189 (talk) 03:55, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to suggest that Naomi Clark of 90210. The series was intended to focus on Annie Wilson, but the character of Naomi was well-received by critics and many thought she was the best part of the series. The second season of the series was reworked to make Naomi the central character. All this information is in her article page if you want further and more detailed explanation. I just wanted to bring it to everyone's attention and if anyone agrees. Akcvtt (talk) 01:21, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This list has lost all touch with the meaning of "breakout character". A breakout character is not the same as the most important or popular character. Not every character whose importance has increased a bit is a breakout character. Both Homer Simpson and Bart Simpson are listed as breakout characters? They were two of the main characters from the start. If the show had come to revolve around Principal Skinner, he would be a breakout character. What's next, Jerry Seinfeld as a breakout character on Seinfeld? 68.239.116.212 (talk) 03:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

probably means it's time for another purge. And a page notice because we get so much of these additions. Daniel Case (talk) 07:09, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think Marissa Cooper from The O.C. should definitely be a contender for this article. Until her death in season 3 she was pretty much the one getting the juiciest storylines. Adam Brody's portrayal of Seth Cohen was also really popular, I remember at least one article naming him the new stereotype for 'geek chic' back when the show was on, but this may be excusable since the relationship between Seth and Ryan was the main point of the show. Or, how about Summer Roberts? I remember the creator stating that she was only meant to be on the first 6 episodes but became so popular that she was elevated to the role of main character. I'll try to find the article I read this in, but I'm not sure if I'll be able to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.132.1.23 (talk) 14:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alucard from Castlevania series should be included. His appearance in Symphony Of The Night has made him what is arguably the most popular and famous of all the characters in the series, even moreso than Dracula himself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.132.1.23 (talk) 15:01, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think we could safely put Hit-Girl from the movie Kick-Ass on this list. The movie is supposed to be about Kick-Ass, but every single review out there points the spotlight at Hit-Girl as the driving force behind the entire movie and talks about how she stole the show. I think that makes her deserving of a breakout character mention. ~Lindsey Ann Lewis —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.181.71.2 (talk) 23:28, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, we can't. Unless it becomes a series centered around her. Daniel Case (talk) 03:44, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a requirement. I see plenty of breakout characters on that list that don't have series that revolve around them. A breakout character, by definition, is a character that stands out above the actual main characters of the movie or show he or she is on. That's the definition of a breakout character. If she had her own series, she wouldn't be a breakout character anymore, she'd actually be a main focal character. Very few of the people on the current list have series based around them, such a Stewie Griffin, Harley Quinn, Mary Jane Watson, etc. Need I go on? I think not. The definition of a breakout character is a character that steals the show from the main characters, and Hit-Girl does exactly that in the movie Kick-Ass. ~Lindsey Ann Lewis — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.107.160.115 (talk • contribs) 03:15, 2 May 2010

"Stealing a movie" is a subjective assessment to begin with. The lead of the article specifically says "episodes". When this was originally created as just "breakout character", it was the outgrowth of an AfD for an article called Fonzie syndrome (a term that now redirects here). It referred specifically (as the lede of this article does) to episodic media, since the classic examples are characters who emerged over time like Alex Keaton, Fonzie or Urkel.

The one counterexamples you cite that I'm familiar with, Stewie Griffin, suggests a misunderstanding of the concept. While Stewie hasn't completely taken over the show the way Fonzie or Urkel did, the cited source (and please note that there is no source offered saying "Hit-Girl" is the breakout character from the movie, and I don't think there will be until there is a sequel, which seems likely to happen) has Seth McFarlane talking about how Stewie's part became much bigger than he had originally anticipated.

Put it this way: Based on just the first American Pie, I wouldn't have put Steve Stifler on this list. But after the second one there would have been less doubt, and now there isn't any. Daniel Case (talk) 14:36, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would put forward Darth Vader as the ultimate breakout character.

According to Michael Kaminski's "The Secret History of Star Wars", Darth Vader was introduced in 1977 as a relatively minor villain, more of a henchman to Tarkin. However in subsequent movies (starting with George re-writing him as Luke's father for Empire Strikes Back) Vader became more a central character, eventually culminating with Revenge of the Sith, where the entire saga is re-defined as the Tragedy of Darth Vader. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.109.223.68 (talk) 01:17, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, now that's a source we can use (someone had put that in once but made the argument without sourcing it. Do you have some more publication info on the book to make it easier to cite? Daniel Case (talk) 15:42, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since "Happy Days" was mentioned, it's kind of surprising that Mork was omitted... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.227.3.11 (talk) 19:04, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interesting one. He was really only in one episode of HD before M&M was started. He never really "broke out" of the former because he wasn't really on it all that much. Daniel Case (talk) 19:58, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Devon Woodcomb could be defined as a breakout character as on DVD commentary on the Chuck season one DVD clearly states that he was intended for the beginning of the show to be seen as the perfect, body by Zeus, doctor boyfriend of main character Chuck Bartowski's sister Ellie to contrast Chuck's unimportant life as a IT guy at electronics store. Originally it was to be revealed later that season that he was a Russian Spy. However good fan reaction led to his role being secured, with the character now credited in the opening as well as being promoted from recurring to main cast between seasons one and two.

Bobba Fett, due for being synonymous with Star Wars, gettings his own side stories, video games ect. Han doesn't quite qualify as he is a starting character, he just beloved by the fan community, though Yoda could fit the bill as he has been brought into other spinoffs as well as subsequent prequel trilogy. Even Lucas himself has said that he wouldn't have killed him off if he knew he would've been as popular as he was.

Vegeta, whos was supposed to appear in one arc appearance wwas expanded into the rest of the series. And while others in dragonball have become breakout, such as Picollo, and Krillin, Vegeta is easily more synonymous with Dragonball Z than the others. It is also similliar to Spike's development from Buffy, in that he started as a villian, role was extended, and then eventually he goes from villain to hero, with Vegeta standing firm as main character Goku's main rival for the remainder of Dragonball Z.

Citations are available for these you've just got to look, do me proud. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.47.238.218 (talk) 14:21, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spider-Man appeared in one issue of Amazing Fantasy before the popularity of which caused Marvel Comics to create him his own magazine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.44.118 (talk) 17:14, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

minor spoilers

Michael J. Caboose was initially created as an excuse to arouse Churches anger in Red vs. Blue. After the overwhelming reaction he and Delano Donut(who was the other rookie in the series) got from fans, the creative team decided to focus the plot on them as the series advanced. Since then, Caboose has had an enormous amount of merchandice and internet memes added to his legacy, he is the only character on either team who has went a significant amount of time being his teams only serving member(this is out of 150+ episodes), and is consistently on of the most (if not the most) favorited character in the series. He has become the focal point of the series, other characters take hiatuses from the story or go through soap-opera re-iterations of themselves, but Caboose has been central to all of the series and mini-series except 4-5 episode tangents which focused on relatively minor characters. His original plan was to be a supporting character who only lived to anger his leader in a series consisting of a few episodes, he ended up being (arguably) the lead character in a series that popularised a form of media and started a cultural phenominom.

also, maybe we should put in an "other media" or "machinima" catagory, if we added caboose he wouldn't fit in any existing catagory —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.94.41.126 (talk) 05:39, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does Reverend Jim Ignatowski from Taxi count as one of these? --Bybbyy (talk) 04:55, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I don't think so. In fact, if anyone from Taxi was the breakout character, it was Latka Gravas - Jack324 (talk) 20:36, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I concur that Latka is a better example than Rev. Jim, who is currently listed. Powers ^T 17:29, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think Kramer from Seinfeld fits the definition of a break-out character pretty well. Thoughts? Worthy of inclusion or no? - Jack324 (talk) 20:41, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michael is The Office's breakout character —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.217.28.121 (talk) 00:59, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, no. He's always been the main character. If The Office has any breakout character, it's Andy—no counterpart on the British version, originally just part of the group of Stamford employees and the only one of that group still with Dunder Mifflin (i.e., still on the show). I don't know whether the producers originally intended for him to go that far. Daniel Case (talk) 04:02, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Linus was initally slated for only a 3 episode stint during the second season of Lost (TV Series) and went on to become the most intriguing and discussed character on the show. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.70.9.147 (talk • contribs) 15:08, 16 March 2011

Yes; this was discussed above. With a source we can put it in. Daniel Case (talk) 17:47, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marvel Comics' antihero Deadpool is surely a candidate? He started out as a minor villain in the X-Men spinoffs New Mutants (#98, Feb. 1991) and later X-Force, becoming a recurring character. He had guest appearances in a few Marvel comics that were not X-Men spinoffs before gaining his own miniseries, The Circle Chase (1993), and then a self-titled miniseries a year later. He has had many solo and shared series since his first in 1997 and is becoming one of Marvel's most popular characters. He is featured in several video games, two of which being Marvel Ultimate Alliance 2 and Marvel Vs. Capcom 3, as well as being played by Ryan Reynolds in X-Men Origins: Wolverine. A spin-off movie starring the character is also in early development. Fans have responded well to his humor-filled dialogue as well as the dark humor he displays towards sensitive topics and his often random delivery. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.148.97.232 (talk) 03:24, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Modern Family is an ensemble show, but critics have consistently pointed out Ty Burrell as Phil Dunphy as being the most intriguing and comedically important characters on the show. Should he be a part of this list?--Beausalant (talk) 02:19, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think so. The show hasn't been retooled around him, anymore than it's been around Eric Stonestreet or Sofia Vergara or even Ed O'Neill, to name various other cast members critics have been equally preoccupied with. Daniel Case (talk) 05:31, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that "Q" (John de Lancie) could qualify for a breakout character. His debut in "Encounter at Farpoint" was originally intended his only appearance. However, his character generated sufficient interest from Star Trek fans that he eventually made multiple appearances throughout the series, and in Deep Space Nine and Voyager as well. In the Star Trek 30 Years and Beyond (1996), he was voted by fans as the "best villian." CouldBeaFan (talk) 19:57, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While I'll agree that Q is a fan favourite in the franchise-right up until his last appearance in the show canon-a breakout character is usually defined as a series regular or main cast member. For TNG, the character who would fit that more would probably be Data. Otherwise you'd have to ask whether or not Guinan could be considered a breakout character as well, I've rarely heard a Trek fan talk badly about anything Whoopi Goldberg's appearances in TNG.Lightningbarer (talk) 20:11, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe James Bond does count as a breakout character. I mean there are other agents in related books before and after him but only he achieved a great deal of popularity. 120.29.83.176 (talk) 11:37, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But he was always the main character! Daniel Case (talk) 16:21, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While Sheldon Cooper is perhaps the most popular character, he was originally intended as a main character, so would he really be considered a breakout character? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.74.101.141 (talk) 01:53, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - and the links cited are all fan opinions on blogs. Had Chuck Lorre stated that Sheldon had been intended as a bit-part player (unlikely since he received second billing from day one) and that his popularity had lead to a shift in focus, then he would belong here. At the moment all we have to go on is the speculation of a couple of viewers. I'm removing him. Smurfmeister (talk) 21:02, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: By sheer coincidence, E4 is showing the first episode right now - Sheldon has the first line and a big chunk of the post-credit scene is spent establishing his personality. That's not something you do for a minor character. Smurfmeister (talk) 23:32, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I have to say, this list is getting ridiculous. It seems we all have a different opinion on what a breakout character is. I propose we delete the ENTIRE list, and instead have a definition (or definitions) of what a breakout character is, followed by a couple of examples, like Homer Simpson and Fonzie. Then, under "External Links", we have a link to the Breakout Character page on TV Tropes. This way people can add whoever they please. Wikpedia is not, after all, a reference guide for those who want to learn about fiction - TV Tropes does that job perfectly well. If people want a list of breakout characters in fiction, the page on TV tropes is much more complete. Prawn Skewers (talk) 08:47, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's insufficiently defined ... as long as people discuss potential additions here on the talk page, and I or some other editor delete the ones that are added without sourcing, we can keep the page under control (It's probably overdue for one of the mass purges I used to have to do more frequently). Originally it was just titled "breakout character", with a few examples, but the examples became longer than the definition section and someone decided to rename it.

As for TV Tropes, well, I contribute there myself but it should be obvious that as an open wiki it meets neither the criteria for a reliable source nor the external links criteria. Daniel Case (talk) 15:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But wouldn't it be easier to *not* have a massive purge every now and then? The list is out of control and isn't in any way academic. As for TV Tropes as an external link, why not? Practically every Star Wars and Star Trek page has a link to Wookiepedia and Memory Alpha, respectively, in External Links and they're open wikis. If people want a list of breakout characters that they can edit, then the page on TV Tropes is a perfect substitute for this page. Unless you have another list of breakout characters from a more "reliable" source? :P Prawn Skewers (talk) 09:10, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer to leave this list to the ones that are actually reliably sourced, and at least attempt to assert one or the other aspect of the definition (some editors never even bothered). That still leaves a lot of entries.

If a lot of the ST and SW articles have xlinks to those sites, I'm pretty sure it's because they're legacies of the earlier days of the site when most of them were created. I'm not sure those links would survive a review under the current policy. Daniel Case (talk) 19:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Re the acceptability of other wikis, see WP:USERG, which says in relevant part:

Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable. This includes any website whose content is largely user-generated, including the Internet Movie Database, Cracked.com, CBDB.com, collaboratively created websites such as wikis, and so forth, with the exception of material on such sites that is labeled as originating from credentialed members of the sites' editorial staff, rather than users.

Daniel Case (talk) 19:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not have firm rules, you know. Hell, that's the FIFTH PILLAR of Wikipedia. Why is it every time I contribute to a talk page all the other editors want to so is squark policy and pretend to be lawyers, when I want to discuss the content itself? Well, whatever, Daniel, you win. Keep this page a mess, as long as it complies with policy, eh? That's the Wikipedia spirit. Prawn Skewers (talk) 09:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vader was not the protagonist of Star Wars, but he was almost certainly the main antagonist. I think he should be removed. Mr. Anon515 22:20, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my god no offense but this list is crap. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.161.100.105 (talk • contribs) 12:42, 17 June 2012

Not the best way not to give offense. Daniel Case (talk) 14:06, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have fucking Sue Sylvester who was always to have been the main villain and Spock who never became the main or most iconic character in star trek but you miss out the following people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.161.100.105 (talk • contribs) 12:42, 17 June 2012

I will remove her as whoever put her in never put in a cite. To say Spock "never became the main or most iconic character in star trek" is either drunken trolling or betraying your age. Daniel Case (talk) 14:06, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fraser Crane, originally to have been in like 6 episodes of Cheers but ended up not only becoming a regular of Cheers but ended up GETTING HIS OWN SHOW that ran for just as long as Cheers. Surely he is more of a breakout character than fucking Randy Marsh or Stewie Griffin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.161.100.105 (talk • contribs) 12:42, 17 June 2012

That a character gets his own show as a sequel series does not make him a breakout character within the original series. Stewie and Randy have sources confirming that their roles were expanded beyond what was originally intended. Daniel Case (talk) 14:06, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Avon from the British sci fi series Blake's 7 he only started out as a supporting character (coming third in the cast) but not only did he become the most popular character but he ended up becoming the lead character in the last two seasons (Spock never did that)

Whether Spock became the lead character or not is irrelevant. I am not familiar with Blake's 7 so I couldn't say. But if you have sources, put them here. Daniel Case (talk) 14:06, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spike from Buffy only to be in it for six episodes but ended up becoming a main villain and a cast member on both Buffy and Angel and is without doubt the most popular character on the show. Ask anyone and they will remember Spike more than any character except for Buffy herself.

Angel himself he was to be in one episode but and went from a guest character to a season regular to having his own show.

The Daleks only to be in one story but became the most iconic monsters in doctor who and among the most iconic monsters in all of science fiction.

Captain Jack only to be a guest star in doctor who has now got his own show and is an iconic and famous character in his own right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.161.100.105 (talk • contribs) 12:42, 17 June 2012

Xena the Warrior Princess only to be in three episodes of Hercules got her own show and is now one of the most famous and iconic fictional characters of the 20th century. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.161.100.105 (talk • contribs) 12:47, 17 June 2012

Again, a source for these assertion would be great. Daniel Case (talk) 14:06, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously include at least these guys this list is the worst list of breakout characters there has ever been it is laughable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.161.100.105 (talk • contribs) 12:42, 17 June 2012

Like your grammar? Daniel Case (talk) 14:06, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously what the hell is what wrong with my grammar? and Spock is not the most iconic character in Star Trek. He is one of them but I think you will find Captain Kirk is the most iconic character in the show and really Spock isn't any more iconic than any other character in the show. "Beam me up Scotty" is as iconic as "live long and prosper", the fact that you don't think Fraser is a breakout character when he is probably the greatest ever example of a breakout character there has ever been (only to be in six episodes of Cheers ends up being in over 400 episodes of both Fraser and Cheers combined and lasts for over 20 years) proves you don't know what your talking about. Randy Marsh is more of a breakout character than Fraser LOL I really have to LOL at that one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.178.68 (talk) 16:38, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "Seriously what the hell is what wrong with my grammar?". Well, more your syntax, like all the run-on sentences. But we'll let that go.
• "Most iconic" is a) sort of a judgement call to begin with and b) a little like being "most pregnant" ... you're either iconic or you're not. But anyway ... again, I suspect you were born somewhat more recently than I was. In the years from, say, TOS's original run to about the middle of the movies, Spock=the franchise in the popular mind. Star Trek: The Motion Picture couldn't have been made without resolving Leonard Nimoy's litigation with the studio at the time ... Robert Wise even had it put in his contract that paramount had to make a "robust effort" to cast him. The movies gradually developed the rest of the cast somewhat more, but people initially wanted to see Spock. There are plenty of sources besides those we already have on this.
• OK, I see now that you were arguing for Frasier as a breakout character within the context of Cheers than as the star of a spinoff. If there's a reliable source, share it. Please. And we can put it in. Daniel Case (talk) 16:57, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, Daniel Case, the page is being kept, and let's put aside the irony of us not linking to another Wiki - I still think this page should not be a list of breakout characters. We don't have to link to TV Tropes if that will stop you screaming in the middle of the night ("Oh no! It's an open wiki!") - I'm confident readers could easily Google "list of breakout characters" and find the page on TV Tropes. Let's look at some pages on Wikipedia that also have pages on TV Tropes:

• Chekhov's gun
• Evil twin
• MacGuffin
• Visual pun
• Antagonist
• Antihero
• Artificial stupidity

None of these are list articles (e.g., it's Evil Twin, not List of evil twins). What they are is what I've been suggesting all along, that this page should have a definition of what a Breakout Character is, then one or two examples. Then link to another website that has a more substantial list (a few of the links above do link to TV Tropes, FYI). Please, Daniel Case, take a step back and look at this objectively. Good articles do not get nominated for deletion. And remember, Wikipedia is not a directory. Quote: "Wikipedia articles are not lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as (but not limited to) quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional)." Prawn Skewers (talk) 02:00, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to take so long to respond (A month? My god ...). As I've said, I don't disagree with you ... as I've noted before, the article wasn't originally a list, but it just sort of became one and someone renamed it appropriately (which just made it more of a list). It would be much easier to maintain otherwise, actually.

But, I'd like to get some consensus behind this, more than just the two of us. Daniel Case (talk) 18:09, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's okay, I'm pretty slack too it would seem. I agree, it would be nice if we could get a bit more of a consensus behind what the article should look like. I'm kind of new to Wikipedia, so do we do a request for comments or something...? Prawn Skewers (talk) 12:19, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't remember where I heard it, but it was from someone on the Simpsons team - they said that originally it was all about Bart Simpson, and only after a while did Homer become the breakout and more dominant character. Ralph Wiggum does not in any way meet the criteria for breakout character - he's nothing but an occasional bit of comic relief and has never taken centre stage Rayman60 (talk) 14:38, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed him and two others nearby as unsourced (some were marked to this effect). You are correct in your recollections of the show. Someone was basically trying to stretch the fact that Matt Groening has said Ralph is his favorite character into making this list. Daniel Case (talk) 02:16, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Much of the entries in the article are not accompanied by citations, and therefore appear to comprise the opinions of the editors who have added them. I am not challenging the issue of whether they are breakout characters, but we need to cite secondary sources, per WP:PSTS and WP:NOR.

Many of these characters appear to be included merely because they were given spinoffs. But a character starring in a spinoff cannot be defined as a breakout character. Does anyone really think that Cleveland Brown from Family Guy was a "breakout" character? He wasn't. The breakout character from that series is probably Stewie Griffin. In fact, Cleveland was such a cipher that in The Cleveland Show's pilot episode, Stewie himself expressed incredulity that Cleveland was the one given a spinoff.

In addition, a number of these appear to have citations that fail verification, as they do not support the claim that the characters are breakout ones. Others fail WP:IRS, or are primary sources instead of secondary ones. Since a breakout character is one who began as a minor character but whose popularity grew to eclipse the main character, as the article's Lead section states, how can someone closely connected to the character's creation be seen as valid secondary source? They can't be.

• The book cited for Bender appears to be not a book, but a mirror of the Wikipedia article on Futurama, which violates WP:CIRCULAR.
• The source cited for the Joker is Comic Vine, which is a wiki, which is not reliable under WP:USERG.
• The source cited for Krazy Kat is just an archive of strips he appeared in. That is primary source, and not a secondary one.
• The book cited for Opus the Penguin would appear to be a primary source.
• The comics cited for The Punisher are primary sources.
• The assertion by Stan Lee on the DVD segment cited for Mary Jane Watson is a primary source.

I'm moving the uncited ones here until they can be cited. Nightscream (talk) 20:14, November 21, 2013 (UTC)

For this section I was hoping we could add Aquaman from his Batman: The Brave and the Bold incarnation. As he too started off as a minor character until he went on to be featured in many more episodes throughout the 3 season series as a mostly friendly, boisterous, happy-go-lucky version of himself. In this sense, brought an all the more lighter tune to the show for Batman's usually stern, all business, tragic character. --Christengo (talk) 09:12, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If the source for Krazy Kat's entry is insufficient, why not read the character's article? 112.198.77.183 (talk) 03:08, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where in the article is there a source for this? For that matter, where in the article does it even mention that he's a breakout character? I couldn't find that. Nightscream (talk) 12:56, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The history section in that article says so. 112.198.82.74 (talk) 22:09, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite the way I read it ... it suggests that the strip in which Krazy Kat appeared was a breakout strip. In that sense, perhaps. But, by that definition, the mouse was as much a breakout character. Daniel Case (talk) 23:11, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

During the early times Krazy appeared strips, he had a minor role. Later, he appeared in his own strips that had a much longer run than the other where he first appeared. Doesn't that make him a breakout character? Also, what do you mean "the mouse was a much a breakout character"? 120.29.72.73 (talk) 00:12, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you quote the passage in question? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 01:55, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Krazy Kat evolved from an earlier comic strip of Herriman's, The Dingbat Family, which started in 1910 and was later renamed The Family Upstairs. This comic chronicled the Dingbats' attempts to avoid the mischief of the mysterious unseen family living in the apartment above theirs and to unmask that family. Herriman would complete the cartoons about the Dingbats, and finding himself with time left over in his 8-hour work day, filled the bottom of the strip with slapstick drawings of the upstairs family's mouse preying upon the Dingbats' cat. This "basement strip" grew into something much larger than the original cartoon. It became a daily comic strip with a title (running vertically down the side of the page) on October 28, 1913 and a black and white full-page Sunday cartoon on April 23, 1916. Due to the objections of editors, who didn't think it was suitable for the comics sections, Krazy Kat originally appeared in the Hearst papers' art and drama sections. Hearst himself, however, enjoyed the strip so much that he gave Herriman a lifetime contract and guaranteed the cartoonist complete creative freedom.

Daniel Case (talk) 03:20, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because Krazy turned out to be more popular than the Dingbats, George Herriman made a strip that centered on the cat. 120.29.72.73 (talk) 22:55, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't read the source cited for that, but if it is accurately cited, then I'm fine with moving KK from here to the article, along with the cite. If you do, don't forget to remove it from the list below! Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 02:12, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comics

[edit]

• Ray (Achewood) first appeared as part of a trio of roughly identical cats three months after the comic began. Their role was limited to competitive swearing.^[1] Both Ray and Roast Beef quickly developed beyond their initial roles. The comic's second sustained story arc revolves around the two characters starting a business^[2] and is the basis of most of the strips for the rest of that month. Several arcs have focused almost completely on Ray,^[3][4] with Roast Beef acting as comedic foil in most of his appearances.

• Death (DC Comics) began as a supporting character in Neil Gaiman's Sandman. Her perky smile and upbeat personality became popular and two mini-series were devoted to her.^[5]

• Ted Forth first appeared in the 1982 comic strip Sally Forth. He was portrayed as a bumbling but well-meaning strategic sourcing professional and the husband of the titular character of the comic strip, Sally Forth. He rose to prominence among the other characters from the strip for his quirky attitude and odd sense of humor, as depicted by writer (since 1999) Francesco Marciuliano. Baltimore comics critic Josh Fruhlinger has posted commentary about him on the Comics Curmudgeonweblog.^[6]

• The Joker first appeared in 1940 in the debut issue of Batman, a series by DC Comics. The first concept sketches of the serial killer, made by Jerry Robinson, drew inspiration from Conrad Veidt's portrayal of Gwynplaine in the 1928 film The Man Who Laughs. Original plans were to have the Joker die at the conclusion of his second appearance, but editor Whitney Ellsworth saw the potential for more stories from the Joker and requested the insertion of an extra panel at the end of the episode to show that the Joker had survived. The character's unpredictable but lethal behavior made him among the readers' most-requested adversary for the Batman and, today, the Joker is one of the most famous comic book villains of all time.

• Opus the Penguin, of Bloom County, Outland, and Opus, was originally featured in a two-week narrative in Bloom County during the 1980s. Fans requested more appearances of the penguin and series creator Berkeley Breathed was pleased with how well the character integrated with other characters in the strip. Opus was made a permanent character, displacing the original cast as the focus of the strip and its sequels.^[7]

• The Punisher was introduced as an enemy of Spider-Man in The Amazing Spider-Man #129 (February 1974).^[8] His ruthless approach to crime-fighting quickly gained the attention of fans, and he made several more appearances in The Amazing Spider-Man as an antihero or an antagonist.^[9] He received his own series in the late 1980s.

• The Smurfs started as minor characters in the Johan and Peewit comic books. Afterward, they appeared in their own strips, TV series and a movie franchise.

• Squirrel Girl made her first appearance in "The Coming of ... Squirrel Girl" in Marvel Super-Heroes vol. 2, #8, a.k.a. Marvel Super-Heroes Winter Special (cover-dated January 1992).^[10] After ambushing the superhero Iron Man, she teamed up with him, and, after Iron Man was captured, defeated the villainous Doctor Doom. Her character grew in popularity, going on to guest star in various minis, and is now a recurring cast member of New Avengers.

• Mary Jane Watson was introduced in The Amazing Spider-Man as a flighty rival of Gwen Stacy for the affections of Peter Parker. However, Mary Jane's energetic and confident personality drew considerably more reader interest than expected and she evolved into one of the central supporting characters of Spider-Man.^[11]

• Wolverine began as an enemy of the Incredible Hulk. Shortly after his first appearance, he joined the X-Men, but editors decided that he and Thunderbird were too similar in abilities and temperament, and they almost killed off Wolverine instead of Thunderbird. He continued as a supporting character, but grew in popularity to become one of Marvel Comics' most popular and marketable characters. He features prominently in the X-Men films and eventually earned his own two spinoff films.^[12][13]

Film

[edit]

• Bugs Bunny, from the Looney Tunes series, began as an unnamed character in a Porky Pig short. Upon receiving a name and being redesigned over time, Bugs eventually outshone his predecessor, and he eventually became the mascot for Warner Bros. Porky, however, remained part of the Looney Tunes cast.

• Chief Inspector Jacques Clouseau was portrayed by Peter Sellers in The Pink Panther series of films. In the first film, David Niven's suave jewel thief was the main character. However, because audiences and critics loved the bumbling Clouseau, later films in the series were written around him instead.^[14]

• Boba Fett was originally a bounty hunter from The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi installments of the Star Wars series. He had only a few lines, but his costume, ship, and other factors gained him a growing following of fans, and he eventually became a more prominent character.

• Burt Gummer was portrayed by Michael Gross in the Tremors series. In the first two movies of the franchise (Tremors and Tremors 2: Aftershocks), Gummer played a supporting role. His paranoid, survivalist, anti-government gun nut persona became popular among fans. In the third installment and on the TV series, Burt is featured as the protagonist. In the prequel Tremors 4: The Legend Begins, the main character is Hiram Gummer, an ancestor of Burt, also played by Gross.

• Porky Pig, part of the Looney Tunes film series, started out as a supporting character to short-lived star Beans the Cat. Only a year later, Porky's popularity increased, and the other characters who appeared since his debut were sent to early retirement. He owned much of the limelight until Bugs Bunny appeared.^[15]

• Woody Woodpecker began as a minor character in Walter Lantz's Andy Panda series. He eventually starred in his own series and became the studio's most popular character.

Television

[edit]

• Bender from Futurama originally was a supporting character to the main character Fry. However, Bender became a breakout character due to his antics and earned his own episodes.

• Bubbles (Mike Smith) on Trailer Park Boys was introduced in a prior short film called The Cart Boy. His first appearance on Trailer Park Boys was in the pilot episode. He is most known for his hoarse voice, large glasses and love of cats. Bubbles is best friends with Ricky and Julian and appeared in all episodes, movies and TV specials. After his first appearance, Bubbles became popular worldwide as the series' breakout character and the most popular character on the show.^{[citation needed]}

• Brian Butterfield (Peter Serafinowicz) onThe Peter Serafinowicz Show, was originally a recurring character in sketches, which saw him in advertisements for shoddy or ridiculous products or services which he provided. The show only ran for one season, but Butterfield has since appeared on an episode of comedy panel show Shooting Stars in 2011, and in 2013 appeared in sketches in the CBBC comedy Fit, appearing in a similar fashion to his appearances on The Peter Serafinowicz Show. Serafinowicz has revealed that a feature film is currently in development based around Brian Butterfield's detective agency.^[16]

• Cigarette Smoking Man (William B. Davis) on The X-Files originally was written as an extra (hence the character's name) in the pilot episode. Over time, however, the producers realised that Davis was an accomplished actor and hired him for additional episodes. The character would later become the main villain of the series.

• Barnabas Collins (Jonathan Frid) on Dark Shadows was introduced in the second season in an attempt to boost flagging ratings. Intended to be killed off after a 13-week stint, he instead evolved into the anti-hero of the series.^{[citation needed]}

• Dr. Frasier Crane (Kelsey Grammer) on Cheers was a psychiatrist and bar regular. Fraser started out as Diane Chambers' love interest in the third season (1984–85). In the fourth season (1985–86), after Diane jilts him at the altar in Europe, Frasier ends up frequenting Cheers and becomes a regular. In the spin-off series Frasier, he gives custody of their son Frederick to Lilith and moves to Seattle.

• Daryl Dixon (Norman Reedus) on AMC's The Walking Dead was supposed to be a recurring character in the show's first season but, due to his popularity, he was upgraded to the main cast starting in Season 2 and became a fan favorite. His "Dixon's Vixens" follow both the character and Norman Reedus himself in other roles.

• Merle Dixon (Michael Rooker) on The Walking Dead was introduced in the second episode, a racist, rude and violent drug dealer. After missing out on most of the second season, Merle returned in Season 3 and is considered a major fan favorite, along with his brother, Daryl Dixon, best known for his comedy and his missing hand bayonet.

• Gibby Gibson (Noah Munck) on ICarly began on the series as a recurring character, but soon became a breakout character. His character became so well known that Munck won Favorite TV Sidekick at the Nickelodeon Kids' Choice Awards.

• Janitor (Neil Flynn) on Scrubs, the sociopathic Janitor who appears to have no name and keeps tormenting the show's main character, became the fan's favorite. Flynn was originally billed as a recurring guest star throughout Season 1, although he appeared in all 24 episodes of that season. He was promoted to a series regular beginning with Season 2. Bill Lawrence, creator of the series, said, "When we watched the pilot, we knew instantly we had to keep this guy around. "Flynn is an improv comedian and, as such, ad-libs many of his lines.

• Yayoi Kise/Cure Peace from Smile PreCure!

• Maxwell Klinger (Jamie Farr) in M*A*S*H was hired for one day’s work as “Corporal Klinger” on the M*A*S*H episode “Chief Surgeon Who?” His character wore dresses to try to convince the army that he was crazy and that he deserved a Section 8 discharge. He was asked back for a dozen episodes in the second season, and he became a regular cast member in the third season. Eventually, his character gave up wearing women’s clothing after a lecture from Colonel Sherman Potter, who explained how a Section 8 Discharge would adversely affect his life. Like most of the characters on M*A*S*H, Corporal Klinger matured as the years passed. He gradually progressed from being a cross-dressing visual joke, and became a more sensitive and resourceful character.

• Cosmo Kramer was portrayed by (Michael Richards) on Seinfeld. The show was originally supposed to be about Jerry Seinfeld and his best friend, George Costanza, with wacky next-door neighbor Kramer appearing once or twice an episode. The second episode introduced Elaine Benes because the network wanted a main female character. The early episodes primarily revolved around Jerry, George, and Elaine. As his popularity increased, Kramer became more frequent in later episodes.

• Jesse Pinkman (Aaron Paul) in Breaking Bad was originally intended to be killed at the end of the first season. Instead, Pinkman quickly became a major character in the series.

• Bobby Singer (Jim Beaver) on Supernatural originally was supposed to appear only in the end of the first season. However, after John Winchester (Sam and Dean's biological father) died, Bobby was promoted as the father figure for the boys. Although he was considered a recurring character, he appeared in an abundant number of episodes over the seasons. He is known as the go-to, know-it-all hunter. After Bobby's eventual death, a new hunter comes up and takes Bobby's place. That hunter was asked by Sam if he was the "new Bobby." Bobby constantly calls Sam and Dean "Idjits" or shouts out "balls!" in frustration. In the eighth season, when he died he went to Hell. Sam brought him out of Hell in order to bring him to Heaven for the second trial to close the gates of Hell.^{[citation needed]}

• Damian Spinelli (Bradford Anderson) on General Hospital was originally planned as a short-term, three-week character in 2006, but his popularity led to him becoming a contract cast member, starring in some of the show's major storylines and costarring in many of his scenes with major cast members such as Steve Burton, Kelly Monaco, and Kirsten Storms. His relationship with Kirsten Storms' Maxie Jones led to their pairing as a "super couple."

• Butters Stotch, (voiced by Matt Stone) on South Park, was originally a minor character. However, Butters' rising popularity led to him temporarily and briefly becoming one of the main characters during the show's sixth season. Many episodes still feature him in a major role.^{[citation needed]}
• Roger the Alien from American Dad!.
• Perry the Platypus on Phineas and Ferb. He starred mainly the subplots of the series, but has become in the most popular of the show.

Considering that the character started as a series regular on Breaking Bad now has his own spin-off Better Call Saul, he should be on this list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.189.78.33 (talk) 22:46, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, 128.189.78.33, and Welcome to Wikipedia. Just so you know, new topics go at the bottom of the page, not in the middle.

As to your statement, just because a character gets their own spinoff doesn't make them a breakout character. Cleveland Brown from Family Guy got his own spinoff, but he's hardly what anyone would call a "breakout character" from that show. Nightscream (talk) 18:54, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Just because a character gets their own spinoff doesn't make them a breakout character", but just because not every character who gets their own spinoff is a breakout character doesn't make Saul Goodman not a breakout character. I would agree with 128.189.78.33 - Saul Goodman should be on the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoelDick (talk • contribs) 16:40, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just putting her out there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.144.81 (talk) 22:14, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:V and WP:PSTS. Just putting that out there. ;-) Nightscream (talk) 04:35, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't have believed it till I saw it here: "According to Google Trends, searches for Tina dwarf those for her other four family members, including patriarch Bob; it's harder to quantify the social Web, but Tina is ubiquitous on Tumblr and in the screencap scene in a way that few TV characters ever become." Amazing. I always thought Louise was the one with that potential. Daniel Case (talk) 03:16, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Section "Film", first paragraph "and is stars as" should be "and stars as"

 Done Thanks for pointing that out. Daniel Case (talk) 13:01, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

64.231.147.158 (talk) 12:20, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

186.188.72.60 (talk) 23:38, 16 November 2014 (UTC) my request is a simple one, add Daryl Dixon (the walking dead) to the list of breakout characters, he is considered by a lot of people as the best character of the show. thanks.[reply]

Hi there. We will need a reliable source that specifically describes them as being a breakout character. Stickee (talk) 00:11, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What about Barney Fife as a breakout character? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 23:25, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on List of breakout characters. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111127163003/http://www.uncut.co.uk/film/russell_brand/reviews/11447 to http://www.uncut.co.uk/film/russell_brand/reviews/11447
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090109124824/http://forums.macleans.ca:80/advansis/?mod=for&act=dip&pid=79438&tid=79438&ref=rss&eid=29 to http://forums.macleans.ca/advansis/?mod=for&act=dip&pid=79438&tid=79438&ref=rss&eid=29
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5wBivRRNP?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.slate.com%2Fid%2F2237077%2F to http://www.slate.com/id/2237077/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081019191151/http://www.instyle.com:80/instyle/package/general/photos/0,,20164507_20057738_20371760,00.html to http://www.instyle.com/instyle/package/general/photos/0,,20164507_20057738_20371760,00.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:18, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arnold Ziffel and Pat Paulsen, if Pat's character can be separated from the actor. Same for Tiny Tim from Laugh-In.Arnold Rothstein1921 (talk) 06:15, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To add to discussion above, it seems like the biggest problem in the article is that there doesn't seem to be an article defining a breakout character to guide what should be on the list. It seems to me that a "breakout character" (in TV, at least) implies not just that a character takes over a show, but that the character's persona becomes common knowledge to the general publicArnold Rothstein1921 (talk) 17:54, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Arnold Rothstein1921: The article was started as "breakout character"; later on someone renamed it to the current title on the understandable grounds that the list of examples was the largest and most actively edited part of the article, and we really didn't need a separate article about the concept. Daniel Case (talk) 19:58, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Now, let's face it! Pinky and the Brain are popular, Buzz Lightyear is popular, Daffy Duck is popular, Woody Woodpecker is popular, Minions are popular, Perry the Platypus is popular, Shaun the Sheep is popular, Foghorn Leghorn is popular, Smurfette is popular, Timon and Pumbaa are popular, Syaoran Li is popular, Asuka Langley Soryu is popular, Mikoto Misaka is popular, Popeye is popular, Yogi Bear is popular, Marceline the Vampire Queen is popular, Donald Duck is popular, Dick Dastardly and Muttley are popular, Scrat is popular, Tinker Bell is popular, Sharpay Evans is popular, EVERYBODY IS EXTREMELY POPULAR!!!!!! We do NOT put "Note to editors. PLEASE DO NOT ADD TO THESE LISTS unless you have reliable SECONDARY sources to back up your entries. Any reference to someone as a "breakout character" is fine." in the first place! That is totally impossible! 207.225.26.200 (talk) 05:29, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I've noted before, "breakout character" is a smaller circle in the "popular character" circle when we make a Venn diagram. Some characters are intended to become popular; those that surprise their creators are on this list. There is nothing wrong with requiring a source specifically stating that the character was a breakout character; it's very much in accordance with policy. Daniel Case (talk) 23:50, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of breakout characters. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20130209082621/http://www.wivb.com/dpps/entertainment/television/elmo-puppeteer-accused-of-underage-relationship-nd12-tvw_4961070 to http://www.wivb.com/dpps/entertainment/television/elmo-puppeteer-accused-of-underage-relationship-nd12-tvw_4961070
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070807104726/http://soapcentral.com/atwt/theactors/howarth.php to http://www.soapcentral.com/atwt/theactors/howarth.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100223233419/http://omg.yahoo.com/news/glam-slam-i-m-with-the-band/14152 to http://omg.yahoo.com/news/glam-slam-i-m-with-the-band/14152

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:01, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of breakout characters. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for https://tv.avclub.com/family-guy-chap-stewie-1798180500
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090117020519/http://blog.zap2it.com/tvgal/2009/01/gil-grissom-is.html to http://blog.zap2it.com/tvgal/2009/01/gil-grissom-is.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:31, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think BB-8 can be called breakout character. The linked article ( https://www.complex.com/pop-culture/2015/12/bb-8-star-wars-force-awakens ) was released was re released just days after “Force awakens” premiere, all it says that people liked the new cute robot. The article simply can’t be an evidence of ongoing popularity, overtaking main characters like Rey. The next film, “Last jedi”, is already released, BB-8 is still a supporting character. I think it is nothing more than it was supposed to be, a new-generation counterpart to R2-D2, another cute little non-humanoid robot, and a new toy for merchandising purposes. Brinerat (talk) 20:58, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Does Thomas the Tank Engine fit the definition of a breakout character? When the first book of The Railway Series was released, there are three engines: Henry, Gordon, and Edward. But when Thomas debut in a later book, he became the most popular engine of series. He also became the title character of the TV series based of the books. 172.250.44.165 (talk) 05:07, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If we can get a reliable, independent source saying this, yes. Daniel Case (talk) 05:23, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here's one, though it is sparse: [2]47.187.192.67 (talk) 03:19, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nightscream: The character was introduced into the comic strip Take Barney Google, F'rinstance, and became so popular the comic was eventually retitled Barney Google and Snuffy Smith, with Snuffy Smith written in large letters and the other part too small to really notice. Barney Google makes only minor appearances at times, and went many years without being in at all, as the article clearly states. This minor character of Snuffy Smith is now the main character of the strip. That is what a breakout character is. The opening sentence of the article defines it as A breakout character is a character in serial fiction (usually stories involving an ensemble cast) who becomes more prominent, popular, discussed, and/or imitated than was originally intended or expected, sometimes equaling or eclipsing the main character or characters in popularity. So clearly a breakout character. Dream Focus 16:17, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for not reading the cited source more carefully. I read it, but missed the portion about it being retitled, which clearly satisfies the definition. My bad. I restored the entry, and added archive info to the cite too. Thanks for pointing that out to me. Nightscream (talk) 16:45, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why was Krazy Kat removed? The history section of the character's article states the cat began as lesser character in an earlier strip. 172.250.44.165 (talk) 15:38, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nightscream removed it almost three years ago, based on his edit summary I think it was because a large part of the entry was unsourced. I agree with you it probably belongs on the list ... maybe we could either restore it without the unsourced material or find a source for that? Daniel Case (talk) 17:42, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and restored it. The citations existing there already are fine. The information is in The Dingbat Family already. Dream Focus 17:49, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The citations there are fine, but they need to be migrated over here as outside the context of the Krazy Kat article they are incomplete here as one of them is a book reference. Daniel Case (talk) 17:57, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Dream. Good to be chatting with you again. With all due respect, it does not matter if citations are in another article; Material has to be sourced in the article(s) in which it appears. One article can be cited as a source for material in another article, per WP:CIRCULAR. Making sure that the material in the list article is fully cited is required by WP:V, WP:CS, et al. Nightscream (talk) 22:57, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I added back in the part about the Minions and added They received their own movie which made more money than any of the Despicable Me films. That proves they are notable breakout characters by means of common sense. The background characters were so popular their movie made more money than the main films. Plus massive merchandise created of them of course. Dream Focus 17:55, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not how it works. The article is about breakout characters, not spinoff characters. If this were the same thing, then Cleveland Brown would be the "breakout" character of Family Guy, which is obviously not the case. We need citations. Not "common sense", which is subjective, and is closer to the domain of OR. Nightscream (talk) 23:02, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Its the same thing. They become popular and they get their own series. I did a Google news search for "minions" "breakout characters" and found reliable sources calling them that, if that's what you are looking for. https://screenrant.com/illumination-movies-ranked-rotten-tomatoes/ The Minions are the true breakout characters of the first Despicable Me movie. https://www.csmonitor.com/The-Culture/Culture-Cafe/2015/0710/Minions-finds-Despicable-Me-protagonist-Gru-s-helpers-taking-center-stage The film “Minions,” which is based on the breakout characters from the “Despicable Me” animated film series, hits theaters today.https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/oscars-frozen-croods-animators-reveal-681013 says they were just created as background characters for the main character. And https://bleedingcool.com/comics/doctor-who-robotech-and-bloodborne-in-titan-comics-april-2019-solicits/ The Minions are beloved the world over, with 34m Facebook followers, 1.3m Instagram followers, 300k Twitter followers, and over 60,000 comic book sales in the US alone! Those who created them didn't anticipate them becoming so popular. Dream Focus 23:25, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Quoting https://www.cinemablend.com/news/2550226/ways-despicable-me-game-changer-over-the-last-decade%7Caccess-date=2020-08-11

The Influx Of Minions (And Studios Trying To Make Their Own Minions) Whenever you think of Despicable Me (or even Illumination in general), the first thing that might come to mind is the minions, the plushy yellow ... err ... things that steal the show from Gru and his daughters. This isn't incidental. From their cutesy antics in the animation company's logo to their pop culture bombardment, from merchandise to memes, Illumination clearly followed the money, and they're not stopping until the gravy train reaches its final stop. The minions were the central focus of Despicable Me 2 and 3's promotional materials and received their solo short films, commercials, and more in the interim. Not only that, but they also got their own spin-off movie, 2015's Minions, which easily became one of the studio's biggest, most profitable box office successes.

And look at Illumination_(company)#Released_films. So it became their most popular film at that time, regardless of whatever inflation adjustment you think might let the others somehow catch up despite not being that much older, the reliable source says so. And no film released after that made as much money as them, so no argument there. Also Illumination (company) says the Minions are their mascot. There is no reference there to backup this statement. So the list article shouldn't have to as well. You don't need a flood of pointless references for every single thing. Dream Focus 00:22, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We're not talking about money. We're talking about breakout characters. Sources that explicitly use the term are a valid basis for inclusion. Sources that give descriptions of character that are essentially those of breakout characters, as with the paragraph you quoted above, are also valid, I think. Sources that merely show how much money a movie made are not, since the definition of a breakout character has nothing to do with money. Nightscream (talk) 02:27, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above is a bit confusing, are you agreeing to the inclusion of Minions? It seems to me that money is a big deal - as pointed out, in order to make all that money the characters have to be be sufficiently successful, and in this case more so than their original setting. Whilst sources that specifically use the term "breakout character(s)" are preferred, they're not the only definition of notability, it is possible to have other sources used that show significant popularity, and for these to be valid. Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:05, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[3] The quoted text is from a "fan", so it intrigued them when they were 10 years old and opened the box for the character and saw it before it appeared in any of the movies. A lot of characters have helmets on, that doesn't make them all "intriguing to fans". The text "which concealed his identity in a way that intrigued fans" is simply ridiculous. How many other characters didn't have a story to them yet so may have intrigued a single 10 year old boy? More opinions please, should that bit be in there? Dream Focus 01:12, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Dream Focus' reasoning, due to WP:DUE concerns. It's a direct quote from a single respondent who is not himself an expert or scholar in the relevant field, certainly not the conclusion the author drew from researching a sample size of respondents on why Boba Fett intrigues them. Though I suspect that there may be other sources out there which does supports that notion. Until then, it should either be rewritten or omitted. Haleth (talk) 01:28, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Articles that provide cultural analysis on things like iconic characters will sometimes approach that objective by grounding the piece with references a specific fan, and typically do not involve a wide sample size of respondents. This is not because the article is about that respondent, but about the cultural subject in question, and the fan simply serves as an example meant to illustrate the point. The wording is a legitimate paraphrase of the article's text, which accurately describes some of the reasons why the character of Boba Fett captured fans' imagination.

Look at all those other entries in the list. Do you see mention of a scientific, peer-reviewed study that included a large pool of respondents?

"Porky Pig debuted as a supporting character in an ensemble cast of new characters that included, among others, Beans the Cat. Only a year later, it became clear that audiences were more interested in Porky Pig."

"Yondu Udonta was originally written as a supporting ally of the titular superhero team, but following the positive reception for the character in the first film his role..."

"Snuffy Smith was introduced as a supporting character in 1934 to Take Barney Google, F'rinstance, became so popular he took over the comic strip..."

Tell me, Dream, did you research each and every one of the citations for those entries, and determine that the authors employed a wide pool of respondents to gauge their "popularity"?

Hell, a lot of the entries that are or were on that list didn't even have sources, or pointed to sources that did not support the notion that they were breakout characters, which is why I removed them myself. As I recall, DreamFocus took umbrage in some of these cases. Now he's complaining that a passage I rewrote into a far more coherent bit of paraphrasing of the source is not valid because it it only "intrigued one fan". Gimme a break.

The cited article for Boba Fett establishes the exact same type of point as the citations for the other entries: That the popularity of the character unexpectedly grew beyond what the creators had intended, even eclipsing that of other characters. It simply does so with a writing technique that employs one fan as a representative stand-in for fandom at large. Nightscream (talk) 22:25, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• grounding the piece with references a specific fan is ridiculous! That is not how its done ever. The exact wording you wanted to put in there is what we're discussing here: "which concealed his identity in a way that intrigued fans" is not appropriate.

Though he had just four lines of dialogue in Empire, Boba Fett provided tons of intrigue.

but his intriguing aesthetic offered countless storytelling possibilities

each slick and practical detail covering Boba Fett offers more questions and intrigue

• You can say his appearance intrigued fans, you can't say him wearing a helmet to conceal his identity intrigued fans. Dream Focus 23:01, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have found a couple of sources referring to Alyx Vance from the Half-Life game series as a "breakout character":

https://www.pcgamer.com/half-life-alyx-cast

https://news.avclub.com/valve-announces-a-new-half-life-game-but-theres-a-catc-1839931204

One could argue that Alyx has gained a significant fan following and extensive positive reviews from critics, with her role in the game series expanding with each sequel, leading to her becoming the sole main character in Half-Life: Alyx. On the other hand, she was already promiment with her first appearence, and the evolution of her character is not notable enough to include in the article.

What is your opinion? 87.68.200.44 (talk) 16:57, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@87.68.200.44:. Hi, 87.68.200.44. Welcome to Wikipedia! Just so you know, while Wikipedia allows one-time editors to edit anonymously, it expects those who intend to edit more frequently to sign in for a username account. It's free, takes only seconds to sign up, and it allows the rest of the community to get to know you as an individual, especially in discussions like this one.

Regarding your suggestion, I have two questions:

* Do the sources explicitly use the phrase "breakout" to describe Alyx?

* If not, do they describe her as a character "who became more prominent, popular, discussed, and/or imitated than was originally intended or expected, sometimes equaling or eclipsing the main character or characters in popularity," as described in this article's Lead section?

Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 17:08, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why not click on the links and search for the word "breakout"? They both call her that. The reliable search custom search engine for reliable sources for video games https://cse.google.com/cse?cx=009782238053898643791:8naerdbd-oy shows ample results for her name and the word "breakout" as well. Dream Focus 17:34, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nightscream: Hi, the sources do explicitly use the phrase "breakout". I'll quote:

Jody Macgregor, PCGamer: "Half-Life: Alyx will be the first we've seen of Half-Life 2's breakout character since 2007."

Sam Barsanti's posts, AV Club: "This is Half-Life: Alyx, some kind of spin-off VR game about Half-Life 2's breakout character..."

Another source I just found that I think is reliable enough: https://nygamecritics.com/2019/11/22/the-roundup-welcoming-two-new-circle-members-stadias-rocky-launch-star-wars-jedi-fallen-order-reviewed-and-more/

Matt Gerardi, The New York Videogame Critic Circle: "...but rather a new game that takes place prior to the events Half-Life 2 and stars that work’s breakout character, Alyx Vance."

So these are the reliable sources I found, but I want to leave the decision to more experienced Wikipedia editors. Thanks for your time. 87.68.200.44 (talk) 00:17, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning the Commander Pike removal from the list[4], I found https://screenrant.com/star-trek-kirk-replace-pike-reason-why/ Anson Mount's version of Pike became the surprise breakout star of Discovery's second season. The character was so popular they made a spinoff show for him that was not originally planned. Fans signed petitions for this. Even without the word "breakout" being mentioned in other sources, the fact that the character was so popular they signed petitions and got them to create a new television show for him confirms he is a breakout character by any definition. Dream Focus 23:36, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks for finding that source. Nightscream (talk) 20:27, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Smith from Lost in Space (played by Jonathan Harris). Rembrandt Brown from Sliders (played by Cleavant Derricks). Kate McGregor from Sea Patrol (played Lisa McCune). Australian navy drama series. 77.99.210.174 (talk) 09:52, June 16, 2021 (UTC)

Hi, 77.99.210.174. Welcome to Wikipedia. Just so you know, when beginning a new discussion, it should be placed at the bottom of the page.

As for your suggestions, Wikipedia requires that the material in its articles be accompanied by reliable, verifiable (usually secondary) sources explicitly cited in the article text in the form of an inline citation, which you can learn to make here. So if you know of or can find sources that meet these criteria, which establish that the characters you mention were breakout characters, feel free to add them. If you need help editing, you can ask us for help here. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 19:15, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Pinkman doesn't fit the mold of a breakout character. He became the deuteragonist because they couldn't kill him off due to the 2007–2008 Writers Guild of America strike. He led the epilogue movie El Camino, but it's Saul Goodman who got a spin-off. This LA times article describes Saul as Breaking Bad's breakout character. SiberianDante (talk) 18:19, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I read the Pinkman entry, and watched the cited video. The described rationale is not what a breakout character is, and even if it were, the source cannot be the producer/writer who created or wrote for the character, so I removed that entry. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 18:22, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think Uhura should be on this list. Here is an article that says she is a breakout character in the new series, Star Trek: Strange New Worlds: https://www.tvinsider.com/1044180/hacks-uhura-star-trek-atlanta-sheldon/ 47.187.192.67 (talk) 15:40, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]