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 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
Looking as some Star Wars characters, the tracking part of the template seems to mess up the articles. I believe that is due to the fact Star Wars (and whatever is used as series) in the SW characters are wikilinked. For example, Luke Skywalker, Kyle Katarn and Starkiller. Harry Blue5 ( talk) 21:07, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Please roll back today's edits immediately. It has completely hosed hundreds of articles like, Amanda Young. You can't pass wikilinked text after the pipe to a category! 198.102.153.2 ( talk) 22:52, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Not the right place to request this. I sent the new infobox for TfD but probably I could just tag it for speedy deletion. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 23:20, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Is there consensus to at least consolidate "Family", "Spouse(s)", "Children" and "Relatives"?
There seems to be but I want to make sure be for restructuring those fields.
- J Greb ( talk) 15:34, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
|nickname=
but keeps |alias=
, (4) removes |species=
, |gender=
, |species=
, |occupation=
, |family=
, |spouse=
, |significantother=
, |children=
, |relatives=
, |religion=
, |nationality=
(5) removes lbl23, data23, lbl24, data24, lbl25, data25 (6) removes lbl33, data33, lbl34, lbl35. Now I can see a point for remove much of this, but given the large number of articles in
Category:Articles using Infobox character with multiple unlabeled fields, I would suggest making sure these fields are actually orphaned first. As J Greb suggested, perhaps a better move would be to start with something more minor, like merging a few fields, then go from there.
Plastikspork
―Œ(talk) 21:27, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
J Greb ( talk · contribs) has helpfully recreated {{ Infobox Buffyverse character}} spawning out of a productive discussion between him, myself and Millahnna ( talk · contribs). We decided the best way to sort out problems relating to the abuse (bloating) of fictional character infoboxes among articles relating to the Buffy franchise (e.g. Rupert Giles, Dawn Summers) was both an approach which immediately gave the infobox an upper limit to its capability, and which also supplied stricter guidelines on correct usage (see Template:Infobox Buffyverse character/doc). If any editors who frequent this page could offer further input this would be greatly appreciated. If this development for the Buffy WikiProject proves successful I imagine the model could be easily recreated quite well in other Wikiprojects with a large number of fictional character articles maligned by "biographically"-weighted infoboxes.~ Zythe Talk to me! 10:43, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Can someone explain to me the point of an "Information" header halfway down the infobox? What is the creator and portrayer supposed to be if not "information"? Bradley0110 ( talk) 14:33, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
{{uninvolved|close|determine outcome of discussion}}
We need to revisit removing "last" from the infobox, as all it does is lead to unverified speculation that a character will never return. Why is it even important? Most characters last appearance is when the show ends anyway.
CTJF83 19:10, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
I've always been massively in favour of removing this field. The first appearance is singular, definite, and tells you lots about Real World Stuff. Th last appearance is indefinite, debatable, always subject to change, and nitpicky—issues like canon, cameos, spin-offs, and whatnot. It's simply not a useful field. Some people want to put in multiple answers like (regular), (cameo), (archive footage) and (guest). Which defeats the point even more. No Final field. It doesn't exist. Remove it. Zythe ( talk) 22:37, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
I see I am in the minority here, but I still favor keeping the "Last" parameter. I already explained my stance in #Cleaning house earlier this year, being in short: When there is a defined "First", there is also a defined "Last". If it is known that the "Last" hasn't happened yet (e.g. in an on-going TV show), leave the field open. If a character unexpectedly appears again after the currently listed "Last", then update that parameter. If there is debate about how "Last" is defined (e.g. death, last appearance as a main cast member, last cameo,...), I could as easily make the same case for the "First" parameter (e.g. first appearance as a child flashback, first cameo before becoming a regular, ...) .However, while looking at my Stargate pet articles, I noticed that quite a few of their main character infoboxes haven't listed the "Last" parameters for years even though the particular Stargate shows haven't been produced for a while. It seems even the fan editors don't care so much about the "Last" parameter (or they care so much that they edit-war over it). So I'll accept whatever consensus emerges here. – sgeureka t• c 08:02, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Shouldn't wikiprojects that would be affected by this discussion of been notified of it's existence? I knew nothing about it until the field was actually removed. I think it should of been kept, alot of characters do have definite last dates and these dates can be verified. Could it not be made optional? If there is a definite first appearance then there can be a definite last appearance. If we remove last then why not first? If the problem is that the character might reappear then the field could be edited but if the character has left the series for now then the last appearance date field should be filled in. D4nnyw14 ( talk) 21:21, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
It wasn't "final asppearance never again will this chaarcter EVER come back EVER again" - just "last", which was last apperead to date... It was a jump to think that readers would think off auto that the character couldn't possibly appear again. I'd assume they know anything is possible if they are familiar with the word fiction. I've seen so many problem fields in these infoboxes - but never once did I think, for one nano second that this particular one was a problem. Can I just add, seeing some comments about last app dates and soap opera characters. Cut the generalisations out please - updating daily? If a character left in one episode and returned another - I doubt they would have left the series... that comes when we have rela world sources to support the actor went their own way, character left the series - providing a solid last app. I really do not see what is so tiresome about updating the filed anyway... such as life with ongoing serials - the subject matter keeps evolving - if we really are that interested in updating them - we can spare like three second? maybe ten? ... writing their last app date... I've wrote a reply in relation to some comments, from a much earlier date - but this wasn't highly advertised tbh - so only just noticed it when I nearly bashed my head on my desk because the last appearance date would not show up. I thought "What am I doing wrong with this infobox layout??? 0_o" ... lol RaintheOne BAM 04:40, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
My mistake, I thought it was. Feel free to restart it and notify all of the WikiProjects you like. Be sure to include Film and Novel. :D BIGNOLE (Contact me) 14:08, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
I've opened this discussion because the field was removed without several wikiprojects who would be affected by the changes being notified. I don't agree with the changes which were made as the last appearance date is subject to change although if that happens the field could be updated. D4nnyw14 ( talk) 23:28, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
I've put the last= back in. Going over this discussion, I see nothing but ramblings about TV series. This template is used in all media, not just TV. I stumbled upon articles about movies for example, where specualtion is not an issue, and this template should not restrict this type of information. If speculation is an issue, just edit the article to remove the speculation and inform the editor about verifiability; do not abuse templates to force out certain types of information that may cater to speculation, as that is detrimental to other cases where there is no speculation. Thank you. — Edokter ( talk) — 11:28, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Let's say a fictional character is generally said to have first appeared in a film, but a children's book, comic book adaptation or tie-in book gets released earlier by weeks or months. Doesn't it mean that little kid's book is technically their "first" appearance in fiction, even if it's only purpose was as a tie-in to the movie they are known for? Mathewignash ( talk) 01:31, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Is there a field for spin offs?!? Mayhem Mario 22:01, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
I there any chance we could have a "parents" field at all please, like the one you get in the general Person Infobox? I'm hoping to add this one to various Welsh mythology characters, and see that the Greek, Germanic and Norse ones all have a "parents" field (as well as one for "siblings") - thanks ( 193.61.220.13 ( talk) 13:17, 23 January 2012 (UTC))
Thanks for the replies to my request – my way of thinking was it would just make this infobox consistent with so many others. I'm afraid I don't quite understand why the personal details section of all infoboxes that deal with persons (whether they be real, fictional or mythological) shouldn't all be more or less the same? Personally I can't see anything wrong with adding parents into a separate field when it comes to mythological characters, after all you already have separate ones for "Children" and "Spouse(s)" (as well as ones for "Family" and "Relatives"), and it seems to work with Greek mythological figures like Zeus, who has one for his "Parents". If there was a separate one for parents, then surely it would be up to the person uploading the information as to whether or not they actually used this field, but at least they would have the option. As I say, I'd have thought it would be better for everyone if there was some consistency across all the different kinds of person infoboxes in this respect, at least when it comes to basic information on an individual. At the end of the day I'm only a casual contributor to Wikipedia so it's up to you what you decide - anyway, no worries just I thought I'd ask.( 193.61.220.13 ( talk) 12:55, 24 January 2012 (UTC))
Many thanks for the further reply. To be honest I'm coming at this from being more of a user than a creator of things on Wikipedia, which is why I just thought it would make sense to have consistency between all the different person infoboxes when it came to this and similar fields. I can understand your point about the subject not being a real person, and the possible irrelevance to their characterisation by giving links to other fictional/mythological characters in an infobox. However for me having a parents field just seems a logical way of breaking things up, simply because people are going to add this kind of thing anyway even if it isn't viewed as good practice. I have to say that having such links to other characters in the infobox does make jumping between them much easier than going through all the text of an article, and, as a user, I find it good to have a resume of such relationships, whether real or fictional, displayed in the infoxbox - but maybe that's just me? I was actually following existing examples that someone else had put up for a couple of Welsh mythological characters, and so was trying to improve upon what was already there and tidy it up a little. I have taken your advice and tried using the optional fields, as well as adding an extra heading, so thanks for this. ( 193.61.220.13 ( talk) 15:22, 24 January 2012 (UTC))
If I may piggyback a different question onto this one, since you mentioned it briefly: when is an appropriate time to use the "gender" field? Mostly when a picture is absent? Or when the first name is ambiguous or atypical? It seems to be used quite inconsistently in a number of pages. Zujua ( talk) 07:57, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Any reason why the image field doesn't work on this template? I have no idea how templates are created here, but I would assume getting this to work would be as easy as changing the line:
|image = {{{image<includeonly>|</includeonly>}}}
to:
| image = {{#if:{{{image|}}}|[[File:{{{image}}}|{{px|{{{image size|{{{image_size|{{{imagesize|}}}}}}}}}|frameless}}|alt={{{alt|}}}]]}}
as in Template:Infobox person, where it's working fine. Or has this been turned off for a reason? TimofKingsland ( talk) 08:05, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
{{
Infobox settlement}}
. Images obviously do work, just not without the syntax. And after learning a bit more about templates, I've realised it's not that simple to change. Nor would it be a good idea to change it now — new parameters would have to be added instead to keep current pages working.This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the parameters description table, I feel that it would be beneficial to have a description of the usage of the "gender" field, as I've seen it used quite inconsistently in a number of pages. I've discussed it with another editor ( Template talk:Infobox character#"Gender" field), and we felt (if this does indeed describe this field's proper usage) that the description should probably read something to the effect of, "to be used when the gender of the character is not obvious from the name or image, particularly in the case of non-human science fiction characters".
Zujua ( talk) 07:51, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
At present there is only "first appearance" and "last appearance". Could somebody please add "latest appearance" for characters in ongoing series? I'm a bit hesitant to try it myself as I don't really know how templates work. Thanks. Opera hat ( talk) 11:22, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
An annoyed newbie changed the parameter on one character from "gender" to "sex" suggesting that "we" learn the difference between the two. Of course, it no longer displays at all! I am reluctant to change it back, since s/he is, of course, correct. Gender refers to language where "ils" in French is masculine gender, "elles" is feminine. The parameter should read "sex."
It could be useful to make it possible to change the word "character" in the series field towards the top of the box to make it plural for instances were two similar characters share a page. In cases like this, as is already done here. Grapesoda22 ( talk) 06:27, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Parameter isn't defined in the documentation, which it probably should be. Should human characters have this parameter used, as at The Inspector? Thanks. DonIago ( talk) 17:57, 10 January 2014 (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 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
Looking as some Star Wars characters, the tracking part of the template seems to mess up the articles. I believe that is due to the fact Star Wars (and whatever is used as series) in the SW characters are wikilinked. For example, Luke Skywalker, Kyle Katarn and Starkiller. Harry Blue5 ( talk) 21:07, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Please roll back today's edits immediately. It has completely hosed hundreds of articles like, Amanda Young. You can't pass wikilinked text after the pipe to a category! 198.102.153.2 ( talk) 22:52, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Not the right place to request this. I sent the new infobox for TfD but probably I could just tag it for speedy deletion. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 23:20, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Is there consensus to at least consolidate "Family", "Spouse(s)", "Children" and "Relatives"?
There seems to be but I want to make sure be for restructuring those fields.
- J Greb ( talk) 15:34, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
|nickname=
but keeps |alias=
, (4) removes |species=
, |gender=
, |species=
, |occupation=
, |family=
, |spouse=
, |significantother=
, |children=
, |relatives=
, |religion=
, |nationality=
(5) removes lbl23, data23, lbl24, data24, lbl25, data25 (6) removes lbl33, data33, lbl34, lbl35. Now I can see a point for remove much of this, but given the large number of articles in
Category:Articles using Infobox character with multiple unlabeled fields, I would suggest making sure these fields are actually orphaned first. As J Greb suggested, perhaps a better move would be to start with something more minor, like merging a few fields, then go from there.
Plastikspork
―Œ(talk) 21:27, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
J Greb ( talk · contribs) has helpfully recreated {{ Infobox Buffyverse character}} spawning out of a productive discussion between him, myself and Millahnna ( talk · contribs). We decided the best way to sort out problems relating to the abuse (bloating) of fictional character infoboxes among articles relating to the Buffy franchise (e.g. Rupert Giles, Dawn Summers) was both an approach which immediately gave the infobox an upper limit to its capability, and which also supplied stricter guidelines on correct usage (see Template:Infobox Buffyverse character/doc). If any editors who frequent this page could offer further input this would be greatly appreciated. If this development for the Buffy WikiProject proves successful I imagine the model could be easily recreated quite well in other Wikiprojects with a large number of fictional character articles maligned by "biographically"-weighted infoboxes.~ Zythe Talk to me! 10:43, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Can someone explain to me the point of an "Information" header halfway down the infobox? What is the creator and portrayer supposed to be if not "information"? Bradley0110 ( talk) 14:33, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
{{uninvolved|close|determine outcome of discussion}}
We need to revisit removing "last" from the infobox, as all it does is lead to unverified speculation that a character will never return. Why is it even important? Most characters last appearance is when the show ends anyway.
CTJF83 19:10, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
I've always been massively in favour of removing this field. The first appearance is singular, definite, and tells you lots about Real World Stuff. Th last appearance is indefinite, debatable, always subject to change, and nitpicky—issues like canon, cameos, spin-offs, and whatnot. It's simply not a useful field. Some people want to put in multiple answers like (regular), (cameo), (archive footage) and (guest). Which defeats the point even more. No Final field. It doesn't exist. Remove it. Zythe ( talk) 22:37, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
I see I am in the minority here, but I still favor keeping the "Last" parameter. I already explained my stance in #Cleaning house earlier this year, being in short: When there is a defined "First", there is also a defined "Last". If it is known that the "Last" hasn't happened yet (e.g. in an on-going TV show), leave the field open. If a character unexpectedly appears again after the currently listed "Last", then update that parameter. If there is debate about how "Last" is defined (e.g. death, last appearance as a main cast member, last cameo,...), I could as easily make the same case for the "First" parameter (e.g. first appearance as a child flashback, first cameo before becoming a regular, ...) .However, while looking at my Stargate pet articles, I noticed that quite a few of their main character infoboxes haven't listed the "Last" parameters for years even though the particular Stargate shows haven't been produced for a while. It seems even the fan editors don't care so much about the "Last" parameter (or they care so much that they edit-war over it). So I'll accept whatever consensus emerges here. – sgeureka t• c 08:02, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Shouldn't wikiprojects that would be affected by this discussion of been notified of it's existence? I knew nothing about it until the field was actually removed. I think it should of been kept, alot of characters do have definite last dates and these dates can be verified. Could it not be made optional? If there is a definite first appearance then there can be a definite last appearance. If we remove last then why not first? If the problem is that the character might reappear then the field could be edited but if the character has left the series for now then the last appearance date field should be filled in. D4nnyw14 ( talk) 21:21, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
It wasn't "final asppearance never again will this chaarcter EVER come back EVER again" - just "last", which was last apperead to date... It was a jump to think that readers would think off auto that the character couldn't possibly appear again. I'd assume they know anything is possible if they are familiar with the word fiction. I've seen so many problem fields in these infoboxes - but never once did I think, for one nano second that this particular one was a problem. Can I just add, seeing some comments about last app dates and soap opera characters. Cut the generalisations out please - updating daily? If a character left in one episode and returned another - I doubt they would have left the series... that comes when we have rela world sources to support the actor went their own way, character left the series - providing a solid last app. I really do not see what is so tiresome about updating the filed anyway... such as life with ongoing serials - the subject matter keeps evolving - if we really are that interested in updating them - we can spare like three second? maybe ten? ... writing their last app date... I've wrote a reply in relation to some comments, from a much earlier date - but this wasn't highly advertised tbh - so only just noticed it when I nearly bashed my head on my desk because the last appearance date would not show up. I thought "What am I doing wrong with this infobox layout??? 0_o" ... lol RaintheOne BAM 04:40, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
My mistake, I thought it was. Feel free to restart it and notify all of the WikiProjects you like. Be sure to include Film and Novel. :D BIGNOLE (Contact me) 14:08, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
I've opened this discussion because the field was removed without several wikiprojects who would be affected by the changes being notified. I don't agree with the changes which were made as the last appearance date is subject to change although if that happens the field could be updated. D4nnyw14 ( talk) 23:28, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
I've put the last= back in. Going over this discussion, I see nothing but ramblings about TV series. This template is used in all media, not just TV. I stumbled upon articles about movies for example, where specualtion is not an issue, and this template should not restrict this type of information. If speculation is an issue, just edit the article to remove the speculation and inform the editor about verifiability; do not abuse templates to force out certain types of information that may cater to speculation, as that is detrimental to other cases where there is no speculation. Thank you. — Edokter ( talk) — 11:28, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Let's say a fictional character is generally said to have first appeared in a film, but a children's book, comic book adaptation or tie-in book gets released earlier by weeks or months. Doesn't it mean that little kid's book is technically their "first" appearance in fiction, even if it's only purpose was as a tie-in to the movie they are known for? Mathewignash ( talk) 01:31, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Is there a field for spin offs?!? Mayhem Mario 22:01, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
I there any chance we could have a "parents" field at all please, like the one you get in the general Person Infobox? I'm hoping to add this one to various Welsh mythology characters, and see that the Greek, Germanic and Norse ones all have a "parents" field (as well as one for "siblings") - thanks ( 193.61.220.13 ( talk) 13:17, 23 January 2012 (UTC))
Thanks for the replies to my request – my way of thinking was it would just make this infobox consistent with so many others. I'm afraid I don't quite understand why the personal details section of all infoboxes that deal with persons (whether they be real, fictional or mythological) shouldn't all be more or less the same? Personally I can't see anything wrong with adding parents into a separate field when it comes to mythological characters, after all you already have separate ones for "Children" and "Spouse(s)" (as well as ones for "Family" and "Relatives"), and it seems to work with Greek mythological figures like Zeus, who has one for his "Parents". If there was a separate one for parents, then surely it would be up to the person uploading the information as to whether or not they actually used this field, but at least they would have the option. As I say, I'd have thought it would be better for everyone if there was some consistency across all the different kinds of person infoboxes in this respect, at least when it comes to basic information on an individual. At the end of the day I'm only a casual contributor to Wikipedia so it's up to you what you decide - anyway, no worries just I thought I'd ask.( 193.61.220.13 ( talk) 12:55, 24 January 2012 (UTC))
Many thanks for the further reply. To be honest I'm coming at this from being more of a user than a creator of things on Wikipedia, which is why I just thought it would make sense to have consistency between all the different person infoboxes when it came to this and similar fields. I can understand your point about the subject not being a real person, and the possible irrelevance to their characterisation by giving links to other fictional/mythological characters in an infobox. However for me having a parents field just seems a logical way of breaking things up, simply because people are going to add this kind of thing anyway even if it isn't viewed as good practice. I have to say that having such links to other characters in the infobox does make jumping between them much easier than going through all the text of an article, and, as a user, I find it good to have a resume of such relationships, whether real or fictional, displayed in the infoxbox - but maybe that's just me? I was actually following existing examples that someone else had put up for a couple of Welsh mythological characters, and so was trying to improve upon what was already there and tidy it up a little. I have taken your advice and tried using the optional fields, as well as adding an extra heading, so thanks for this. ( 193.61.220.13 ( talk) 15:22, 24 January 2012 (UTC))
If I may piggyback a different question onto this one, since you mentioned it briefly: when is an appropriate time to use the "gender" field? Mostly when a picture is absent? Or when the first name is ambiguous or atypical? It seems to be used quite inconsistently in a number of pages. Zujua ( talk) 07:57, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Any reason why the image field doesn't work on this template? I have no idea how templates are created here, but I would assume getting this to work would be as easy as changing the line:
|image = {{{image<includeonly>|</includeonly>}}}
to:
| image = {{#if:{{{image|}}}|[[File:{{{image}}}|{{px|{{{image size|{{{image_size|{{{imagesize|}}}}}}}}}|frameless}}|alt={{{alt|}}}]]}}
as in Template:Infobox person, where it's working fine. Or has this been turned off for a reason? TimofKingsland ( talk) 08:05, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
{{
Infobox settlement}}
. Images obviously do work, just not without the syntax. And after learning a bit more about templates, I've realised it's not that simple to change. Nor would it be a good idea to change it now — new parameters would have to be added instead to keep current pages working.This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the parameters description table, I feel that it would be beneficial to have a description of the usage of the "gender" field, as I've seen it used quite inconsistently in a number of pages. I've discussed it with another editor ( Template talk:Infobox character#"Gender" field), and we felt (if this does indeed describe this field's proper usage) that the description should probably read something to the effect of, "to be used when the gender of the character is not obvious from the name or image, particularly in the case of non-human science fiction characters".
Zujua ( talk) 07:51, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
At present there is only "first appearance" and "last appearance". Could somebody please add "latest appearance" for characters in ongoing series? I'm a bit hesitant to try it myself as I don't really know how templates work. Thanks. Opera hat ( talk) 11:22, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
An annoyed newbie changed the parameter on one character from "gender" to "sex" suggesting that "we" learn the difference between the two. Of course, it no longer displays at all! I am reluctant to change it back, since s/he is, of course, correct. Gender refers to language where "ils" in French is masculine gender, "elles" is feminine. The parameter should read "sex."
It could be useful to make it possible to change the word "character" in the series field towards the top of the box to make it plural for instances were two similar characters share a page. In cases like this, as is already done here. Grapesoda22 ( talk) 06:27, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Parameter isn't defined in the documentation, which it probably should be. Should human characters have this parameter used, as at The Inspector? Thanks. DonIago ( talk) 17:57, 10 January 2014 (UTC)