This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
i wonder if any wikipedians know anything about decent color choices
all these infoboxes have such ugly colors. 08:30, 10 July 2006 71.235.238.180 ( Talk)
Is there some reason that both the "Family" and "Relatives" fields are necessary? They seem wholly redundant to me. Shannernanner 14:50, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
The heading "Statistics" doesn't make much sense since there is little to do with statistics. How about renaming to "Information"? Cburnett 22:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
I went ahead with "Information" because things like creator, portrayal, etc. aren't characteristics (species, gender, etc. would be though). I don't care if it gets changed again, it's just that there's 3-0 that statistics is not the word of choice. :) Cburnett 01:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't really like the Cause section of the infobox. It isn't always too clear what to put into this section. What do you think about changing this to Current Status like the 24 character infobox Template:Infobox 24 Character CaptainGetts 22:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I think there is a potential problem for creating a generic "character infobox". One, not every character is the same; a character in a film, or a comic book, is not always equivalent to someone in a television show. As this template just says "character" and not "television character", what is the point of saying "episode" when it could be used in a film? Also, per Wikipedia's writing about fiction, we shouldn't be treating these characters as if they are real. The sections "date of birth and death", or "age" are something that you attribute to a real person, not a fictional person. Being fictional relinquishes you of having any chance of ever "dying". The same with relatives. What is the importance of relatives to most characters? Are we creating a fictional family tree? Look at the select few character pages that have made it to Featured Article status, and compare infoboxes. Lastly, I think "creator" should be moved up higher, at least above all the people that portrayed the character. This is just my take on the box, though. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 13:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm new to infoboxes, but it looks like first is required --- see Frank Booth for an example of how the infobox looks when first isn't specified. For characters who are only in a single film, using first doesn't really make sense. Should first be changed to be not required or would that cause other problems? Or is this the wrong infobox to use for a character who appears in a single movie? Rickterp 12:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
The Spouse section renders Relationships. This wording may seem slightly confusing to some as Relationships can include co-workers, kin, dates, one-night stands, and current and past marriages/unions. Might it be possible to change Spouse to render Spouse(s) (to include both past and present marriages/unions) and make a new section for Relationships to include dates, one-night stands, and other friends??-- JacenDS 15:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
There seems little point having a bar saying "Information" . Can we remove that? Rich Farmbrough, 13:02 11 July 2007 (GMT).
This template contradicts what WP:WAF says about using infoboxes for fictional characters. Mainly, WAF says only use in-universe information that is "essential to understanding the character", yet this template is riddled with almost nothing but. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 00:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Where to begin? I can agree that some of the trivial minutae that pops up in both articles and infoboxes is a nuisance, but Bignole, I would argue that your minimalist approach is somewhat the other extreme. I think you're being too strict with your definition of "understanding" a character; you seem to be implying that an infobox should, for example, somehow explain why Lily Bart commits suicide in The House of Mirth. What would you have in an infobox, then, a name and photo? I'd call that a photobox. It may not be necessary to list a character's second cousins, but I certainly think knowing who Alexis Colby's children are on Dynasty helps me understand her place in that universe. No, I don't care what her address is, but on Coronation Street an address does indeed set context. This infobox is meant to be used for varied characters in varied genres; perhaps that field should be removed here and CS should have its own infobox that includes it, but we also don't necessarily need a unique infobox for every single show or genre. And I might add, assuming gender/sex based on a photo or name is assuming a lot. Even if a pic is "clearly" a human female, I prefer consistency and see nothing wrong with gender designated on every infobox. Nutritional boxes on US food packaging work because they are consistent; we know what information will be covered, we know where to look. Diet Pepsi obviously has no protein, but they still list it at 0 grams on the can.
For navigation purposes alone, I believe infoboxes should have complete family lists (immediate relatives) rather than sprawling family trees within the article or space-eating lists within an article. This kind of information is notable, and is better placed in a neat and space-efficient infobox than written out in prose (when not noted for some other reason in the text). The presence or absence of family members in itself tells us much about a character, no? I make a lot of technical and grammatical edits to articles for soaps and series I don't watch, and while more robust infoboxes can be quite useful, the stripped-down ones might as well not be there. Why do so many WikiProjects require them for a complete article if they're just for photos and, like, occupation?
You have a point that guidelines cannot be ignored just for the sake of it. However, though the paragraph you are referring to from WP:WAF italicizes essential, it is short and incredibly vague. Purposely vague, I imagine. I make many technical and grammatical edits to articles for soaps and series I don't watch, and I find more robust infoboxes so useful, while stripped-bare ones might as well not be there. TAnthony 03:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
The fields below do not seem to add value, as they are already covered in age (range):
The fields below do not seem to add value, as they are already covered in family: If really needed, they can be manually specified inside the family field.
The following fields are lacking:
{| class="infobox" style="float: right; clear: right; margin: 0 0 1em 1em; width: 20em; font-size: 90%" |- |+ '''''{{Series}}'' character''' |- (Rest of infobox here)
See Farix's suggestion #1
Regards, G.A.S 12:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
I have an issue with consolidating the relationship categories. Especially in the case of soap characters (who may have many children, spouses and other relations), this will result in longer lists that will make it harder to find information. TAnthony 15:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
I temporarily added hidden links to some of the fields so that we can actually see how some of these are being used;
It looks like these are being used in alot of different ways. While there is obvious overlap I also see examples of these being 'stretched' to fit (e.g. 'Spouse' used to list a girlfriend or 'Nickname' used to list the full official name when the character is commonly known by the nickname)... suggesting there are 'gaps' as well. I'd probably keep the three 'alternate names' fields and add a 'Full name' option as well. On the others 'Family' and 'Relatives' could probably best be combined into 'Relationships' (which would also cover unmarried partners) listed after 'Spouse' and 'Children'. --
CBD 20:08, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
Level of change here is "very" high. Also the content of the parameters has changed to give the content a very "visual media" bias. What about the "printed media" . With a infobox named "character" is need to cater for all types of usage of such "characters". Is this being considered. It doesn't look that way. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/ (Desk) 08:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Not sure why the changes were made, when I tried to use his/her template on the Bo Brady page it was all messed up. So I reverted it to the template we have been using for months. An explanation before changing it back would be nice since it was not working. IrishLass0128 16:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm having a bit of conflict on Serena van der Woodsen/ Blair Waldorf pages. The spouse parameter is to only be used to list people that the character has married, right? — *H ippi ippi 01:06, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
How do you stop this part of the infobox from displaying? There are several characters who do not have anything noteworthy in this section but it still says 'Information' needlessly. asyndeton ( talk) 10:24, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
I suggest that the Cause/Reason parameter be removed as it seems unencyclopedic. I believe that having that kind of information should be described in text rather than an infobox. Mythdon ( talk) 23:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Why isn't the nickname field working properly? -- Jamie jca ( talk) 21:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Should be at Template:Infobox Character (notice capitalization). Mr. Absurd ( talk) 02:48, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
I noticed a small error on this line:
{{#if: {{{image<includeonly>|</includeonly>}}} | <tr> <td style="text-align: center;" colspan="2">{{{image}}} {{#if: {{{caption<includeonly>|</includeonly>}}} | <br /><small>{{{caption}}}}}</small></td> </tr>}}
The closing braces for the second if statement needs to be after the closing small tag:
{{#if: {{{image<includeonly>|</includeonly>}}} | <tr> <td style="text-align: center;" colspan="2">{{{image}}} {{#if: {{{caption<includeonly>|</includeonly>}}} | <br /><small>{{{caption}}}</small>}}</td> </tr>}}
-- Allmorris ( talk) 19:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Instead of:
{{Infobox character | colour = #DEDEE2 | colour text = | name = | series = | image = | caption = | first = | last = | cause = | creator = | portrayer = | episode = | nickname = | alias = | species = | gender = | age = | born = | death = | specialty = | occupation = | title = | callsign = | family = | spouse = | significantother = | children = | relatives = | residence = | religion = | nationality = | imdb_id = }}
It should be:
{{Infobox character | name = | series = | image = }}
| colour = #DEDEE2 | colour text = | caption = | first = | last = | cause = | creator = | portrayer = | episode = | nickname = | alias = | species = | gender = | age = | born = | death = | specialty = | occupation = | title = | callsign = | family = | spouse = | significantother = | children = | relatives = | residence = | religion = | nationality = | imdb_id =
That way, editors know the difference between the basic and more detailed parameters. Is this a good procedure?. — Mythdon ( talk • contribs) 06:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
For animated characters, "voiced by" would be more appropriate than "portrayed by" so a voice actor tag should be added.-- Marcus Brute ( talk) 03:35, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry I'm not good at this infobox. How do you name you're custom label. when I enter data1 = it says lbl1, how do I change that to my own? Thanks. Rk Or To N 06:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
{{Infobox character | colour = #DEDEE2 | colour text = | name = For coding sample | series = | image = | caption = | first = | last = | lbl1 = SampleLabel | data1 = SampleData }}
For coding sample | |
---|---|
SampleLabel | SampleData |
I trust that helps? :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/ (Desk) 10:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Requesting sync with the new sandbox, which updates the template to use wikitable syntax (which is much easier to read and edit) as opposed to raw HTML. No output changes. This is a precursor to a future migration to the {{ infobox}} base template, which will significantly improve the code's ease of maintainance when complete. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Today, I had more time to check the code. It's ok. No big changes and a lot of simplifications with the use of wiki syntax. I updated the original infobox. I'll do one more thing later. I'll remove the imdb_id parameter as per all other Infoboxes that were using it. For example Infobox Film, Infobox Television film, etc. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 08:04, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
is it just me, or does the information header look weird in this infobox (for example in Echo (Dollhouse) article). Bawolff ( talk) 07:34, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
I got an idea in order to describe chracters and celebrities we should add a traits template in the charcter info box so we can learn about who they are and what role they play in, in the tv show that they are in. I think this would be a good idea so I hope they put it up there whoever can edit this infobox please put it up there.-- Sprite7868 ( talk) 12:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Is there a preferred image size for this infobox? If so, could it please be noted somewhere on the template's page. Thank you.-- Rockfang ( talk) 04:09, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
This infobox is so sloppy. First of all you should have to put the image in brackets with a measurement. It should be similar to [[File:{{{image}}}]]
and the measurements should be in a seperate parameter. The caption should be {{{image_caption|{{{caption|}}}}}}
. Why is this box constructed with a table? How about {{
Infobox}}?
• S • C
• A • R
• C • E • 17:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Per this, could someone remove the "age" field from the infobox? -- Conti| ✉ 10:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Before removing it, we should know editors' opinion in here as well. I agree that the age field is confusing. It was supposed to give an idea of the age of the character if the show was not covering a large time period. I agree with removal. Until now, if year of birth was known I was replacing it with |born=
. --
Magioladitis (
talk) 11:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
This parameter has been removed by Infobox film, Infobox TV film, etc. IMDb is not a reliable source for verifying content in Wikipedia articles. So there was consensus to remove this parameter. I am gonna do the same here. As I first step I created Category:Infobox characters articles with IMBD parameter to let a bot run and clean the parameter. Thanks, Magioladitis ( talk) 16:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
To improve this infobox's emphasis on describing "fiction and fictional elements from the perspective of the real world" ( WP:MOSFICT and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)#Infoboxes and succession boxes), I'd like to encourage the addition and use of a parameter named something like "awards" which would be used to note when either the "creator" or "portrayer" of the character received in a major award specifically because of the character. It could apply, for example, to an Emmy Award given to an actor, or an award given to the creator in recognition of the character's role in influencing society's understanding of something related to that character. 72.244.206.223 ( talk) 22:53, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
i wonder if any wikipedians know anything about decent color choices
all these infoboxes have such ugly colors. 08:30, 10 July 2006 71.235.238.180 ( Talk)
Is there some reason that both the "Family" and "Relatives" fields are necessary? They seem wholly redundant to me. Shannernanner 14:50, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
The heading "Statistics" doesn't make much sense since there is little to do with statistics. How about renaming to "Information"? Cburnett 22:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
I went ahead with "Information" because things like creator, portrayal, etc. aren't characteristics (species, gender, etc. would be though). I don't care if it gets changed again, it's just that there's 3-0 that statistics is not the word of choice. :) Cburnett 01:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't really like the Cause section of the infobox. It isn't always too clear what to put into this section. What do you think about changing this to Current Status like the 24 character infobox Template:Infobox 24 Character CaptainGetts 22:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I think there is a potential problem for creating a generic "character infobox". One, not every character is the same; a character in a film, or a comic book, is not always equivalent to someone in a television show. As this template just says "character" and not "television character", what is the point of saying "episode" when it could be used in a film? Also, per Wikipedia's writing about fiction, we shouldn't be treating these characters as if they are real. The sections "date of birth and death", or "age" are something that you attribute to a real person, not a fictional person. Being fictional relinquishes you of having any chance of ever "dying". The same with relatives. What is the importance of relatives to most characters? Are we creating a fictional family tree? Look at the select few character pages that have made it to Featured Article status, and compare infoboxes. Lastly, I think "creator" should be moved up higher, at least above all the people that portrayed the character. This is just my take on the box, though. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 13:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm new to infoboxes, but it looks like first is required --- see Frank Booth for an example of how the infobox looks when first isn't specified. For characters who are only in a single film, using first doesn't really make sense. Should first be changed to be not required or would that cause other problems? Or is this the wrong infobox to use for a character who appears in a single movie? Rickterp 12:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
The Spouse section renders Relationships. This wording may seem slightly confusing to some as Relationships can include co-workers, kin, dates, one-night stands, and current and past marriages/unions. Might it be possible to change Spouse to render Spouse(s) (to include both past and present marriages/unions) and make a new section for Relationships to include dates, one-night stands, and other friends??-- JacenDS 15:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
There seems little point having a bar saying "Information" . Can we remove that? Rich Farmbrough, 13:02 11 July 2007 (GMT).
This template contradicts what WP:WAF says about using infoboxes for fictional characters. Mainly, WAF says only use in-universe information that is "essential to understanding the character", yet this template is riddled with almost nothing but. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 00:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Where to begin? I can agree that some of the trivial minutae that pops up in both articles and infoboxes is a nuisance, but Bignole, I would argue that your minimalist approach is somewhat the other extreme. I think you're being too strict with your definition of "understanding" a character; you seem to be implying that an infobox should, for example, somehow explain why Lily Bart commits suicide in The House of Mirth. What would you have in an infobox, then, a name and photo? I'd call that a photobox. It may not be necessary to list a character's second cousins, but I certainly think knowing who Alexis Colby's children are on Dynasty helps me understand her place in that universe. No, I don't care what her address is, but on Coronation Street an address does indeed set context. This infobox is meant to be used for varied characters in varied genres; perhaps that field should be removed here and CS should have its own infobox that includes it, but we also don't necessarily need a unique infobox for every single show or genre. And I might add, assuming gender/sex based on a photo or name is assuming a lot. Even if a pic is "clearly" a human female, I prefer consistency and see nothing wrong with gender designated on every infobox. Nutritional boxes on US food packaging work because they are consistent; we know what information will be covered, we know where to look. Diet Pepsi obviously has no protein, but they still list it at 0 grams on the can.
For navigation purposes alone, I believe infoboxes should have complete family lists (immediate relatives) rather than sprawling family trees within the article or space-eating lists within an article. This kind of information is notable, and is better placed in a neat and space-efficient infobox than written out in prose (when not noted for some other reason in the text). The presence or absence of family members in itself tells us much about a character, no? I make a lot of technical and grammatical edits to articles for soaps and series I don't watch, and while more robust infoboxes can be quite useful, the stripped-down ones might as well not be there. Why do so many WikiProjects require them for a complete article if they're just for photos and, like, occupation?
You have a point that guidelines cannot be ignored just for the sake of it. However, though the paragraph you are referring to from WP:WAF italicizes essential, it is short and incredibly vague. Purposely vague, I imagine. I make many technical and grammatical edits to articles for soaps and series I don't watch, and I find more robust infoboxes so useful, while stripped-bare ones might as well not be there. TAnthony 03:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
The fields below do not seem to add value, as they are already covered in age (range):
The fields below do not seem to add value, as they are already covered in family: If really needed, they can be manually specified inside the family field.
The following fields are lacking:
{| class="infobox" style="float: right; clear: right; margin: 0 0 1em 1em; width: 20em; font-size: 90%" |- |+ '''''{{Series}}'' character''' |- (Rest of infobox here)
See Farix's suggestion #1
Regards, G.A.S 12:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
I have an issue with consolidating the relationship categories. Especially in the case of soap characters (who may have many children, spouses and other relations), this will result in longer lists that will make it harder to find information. TAnthony 15:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
I temporarily added hidden links to some of the fields so that we can actually see how some of these are being used;
It looks like these are being used in alot of different ways. While there is obvious overlap I also see examples of these being 'stretched' to fit (e.g. 'Spouse' used to list a girlfriend or 'Nickname' used to list the full official name when the character is commonly known by the nickname)... suggesting there are 'gaps' as well. I'd probably keep the three 'alternate names' fields and add a 'Full name' option as well. On the others 'Family' and 'Relatives' could probably best be combined into 'Relationships' (which would also cover unmarried partners) listed after 'Spouse' and 'Children'. --
CBD 20:08, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
Level of change here is "very" high. Also the content of the parameters has changed to give the content a very "visual media" bias. What about the "printed media" . With a infobox named "character" is need to cater for all types of usage of such "characters". Is this being considered. It doesn't look that way. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/ (Desk) 08:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Not sure why the changes were made, when I tried to use his/her template on the Bo Brady page it was all messed up. So I reverted it to the template we have been using for months. An explanation before changing it back would be nice since it was not working. IrishLass0128 16:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm having a bit of conflict on Serena van der Woodsen/ Blair Waldorf pages. The spouse parameter is to only be used to list people that the character has married, right? — *H ippi ippi 01:06, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
How do you stop this part of the infobox from displaying? There are several characters who do not have anything noteworthy in this section but it still says 'Information' needlessly. asyndeton ( talk) 10:24, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
I suggest that the Cause/Reason parameter be removed as it seems unencyclopedic. I believe that having that kind of information should be described in text rather than an infobox. Mythdon ( talk) 23:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Why isn't the nickname field working properly? -- Jamie jca ( talk) 21:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Should be at Template:Infobox Character (notice capitalization). Mr. Absurd ( talk) 02:48, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
I noticed a small error on this line:
{{#if: {{{image<includeonly>|</includeonly>}}} | <tr> <td style="text-align: center;" colspan="2">{{{image}}} {{#if: {{{caption<includeonly>|</includeonly>}}} | <br /><small>{{{caption}}}}}</small></td> </tr>}}
The closing braces for the second if statement needs to be after the closing small tag:
{{#if: {{{image<includeonly>|</includeonly>}}} | <tr> <td style="text-align: center;" colspan="2">{{{image}}} {{#if: {{{caption<includeonly>|</includeonly>}}} | <br /><small>{{{caption}}}</small>}}</td> </tr>}}
-- Allmorris ( talk) 19:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Instead of:
{{Infobox character | colour = #DEDEE2 | colour text = | name = | series = | image = | caption = | first = | last = | cause = | creator = | portrayer = | episode = | nickname = | alias = | species = | gender = | age = | born = | death = | specialty = | occupation = | title = | callsign = | family = | spouse = | significantother = | children = | relatives = | residence = | religion = | nationality = | imdb_id = }}
It should be:
{{Infobox character | name = | series = | image = }}
| colour = #DEDEE2 | colour text = | caption = | first = | last = | cause = | creator = | portrayer = | episode = | nickname = | alias = | species = | gender = | age = | born = | death = | specialty = | occupation = | title = | callsign = | family = | spouse = | significantother = | children = | relatives = | residence = | religion = | nationality = | imdb_id =
That way, editors know the difference between the basic and more detailed parameters. Is this a good procedure?. — Mythdon ( talk • contribs) 06:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
For animated characters, "voiced by" would be more appropriate than "portrayed by" so a voice actor tag should be added.-- Marcus Brute ( talk) 03:35, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry I'm not good at this infobox. How do you name you're custom label. when I enter data1 = it says lbl1, how do I change that to my own? Thanks. Rk Or To N 06:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
{{Infobox character | colour = #DEDEE2 | colour text = | name = For coding sample | series = | image = | caption = | first = | last = | lbl1 = SampleLabel | data1 = SampleData }}
For coding sample | |
---|---|
SampleLabel | SampleData |
I trust that helps? :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/ (Desk) 10:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Requesting sync with the new sandbox, which updates the template to use wikitable syntax (which is much easier to read and edit) as opposed to raw HTML. No output changes. This is a precursor to a future migration to the {{ infobox}} base template, which will significantly improve the code's ease of maintainance when complete. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Today, I had more time to check the code. It's ok. No big changes and a lot of simplifications with the use of wiki syntax. I updated the original infobox. I'll do one more thing later. I'll remove the imdb_id parameter as per all other Infoboxes that were using it. For example Infobox Film, Infobox Television film, etc. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 08:04, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
is it just me, or does the information header look weird in this infobox (for example in Echo (Dollhouse) article). Bawolff ( talk) 07:34, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
I got an idea in order to describe chracters and celebrities we should add a traits template in the charcter info box so we can learn about who they are and what role they play in, in the tv show that they are in. I think this would be a good idea so I hope they put it up there whoever can edit this infobox please put it up there.-- Sprite7868 ( talk) 12:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Is there a preferred image size for this infobox? If so, could it please be noted somewhere on the template's page. Thank you.-- Rockfang ( talk) 04:09, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
This infobox is so sloppy. First of all you should have to put the image in brackets with a measurement. It should be similar to [[File:{{{image}}}]]
and the measurements should be in a seperate parameter. The caption should be {{{image_caption|{{{caption|}}}}}}
. Why is this box constructed with a table? How about {{
Infobox}}?
• S • C
• A • R
• C • E • 17:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Per this, could someone remove the "age" field from the infobox? -- Conti| ✉ 10:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Before removing it, we should know editors' opinion in here as well. I agree that the age field is confusing. It was supposed to give an idea of the age of the character if the show was not covering a large time period. I agree with removal. Until now, if year of birth was known I was replacing it with |born=
. --
Magioladitis (
talk) 11:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
This parameter has been removed by Infobox film, Infobox TV film, etc. IMDb is not a reliable source for verifying content in Wikipedia articles. So there was consensus to remove this parameter. I am gonna do the same here. As I first step I created Category:Infobox characters articles with IMBD parameter to let a bot run and clean the parameter. Thanks, Magioladitis ( talk) 16:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
To improve this infobox's emphasis on describing "fiction and fictional elements from the perspective of the real world" ( WP:MOSFICT and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)#Infoboxes and succession boxes), I'd like to encourage the addition and use of a parameter named something like "awards" which would be used to note when either the "creator" or "portrayer" of the character received in a major award specifically because of the character. It could apply, for example, to an Emmy Award given to an actor, or an award given to the creator in recognition of the character's role in influencing society's understanding of something related to that character. 72.244.206.223 ( talk) 22:53, 21 September 2009 (UTC)