Template talk:Infobox character/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Parameter removal

{{editprotected}} I think we should remove the "number of episodes" parameter. First is it really necessary to list how many episodes a character has been in? Second, do people really count all the episodes a character is in for an accurate number? CTJF83 GoUSA 22:46, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Tend to agree, particular as this template is also used for many types of fictional characters, not just television ones. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:13, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I concur. Per WP:WAF, only something "essential to understanding the character" needs to be there, and an episode count isn't essential. There isn't some hierarchy that says if you've appeared in X number of episodes then you're a better character than someone who appeared in less.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:52, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

It's a matter of opinion. Some people do consider a character with a bigger episode count to be more important than a character with less. Just like one would consider a character that's been on a show since Season 1 to be more important than a character who showed up in Season 3. One can also argue that "essential to understanding the character" can relate to an episode count like it would with first and last appearances. Are you going to remove those too? Geeky Randy (talk) 00:51, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

You're semi-right, but a character from season 2 of the Simpsons Herbert Powell (2 total episodes) and season 1 Jacques (1 episode) are far less important/notable and have been in far fewer episodes than season 7 introduction of Disco Stu or season 9 Cookie Kwan, among many more. CTJF83 chat 09:01, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

And that's why I think an episode count is needed. In your example, we know the difference because if a character like Disco Stu is that notable, he'll have his own article. A minor character will already have the list of episodes he/she appeared in in the sub-section of an article; but a major character lacks that information. I find that a major character has less information about them than a minor character. Geeky Randy (talk) 01:42, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, last appearance can't be added until a show has finished airing, ie former or dead characters can appear in flashbacks. CTJF83 chat 09:03, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Do it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 01:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, it is fully protected, so I'll hunt down an admin. CTJF83 GoUSA 19:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

 Parameter removed. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:48, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the removal. Just one small remark, when discussing of removing a parameter that is probably used in hundreds of articles and many people use it we have to wait more than one day for making any changes in case they are disagreements. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I have updated the documentation page to no longer show |episode=. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:13, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Strongly disagree. Many users, including myself find it useful. It is encyclopedic. All one has to do is get credit information from IMDb, which is a credible source when it comes to acting credits because the majority of those are give by the distributor. Some actors are given credit even though their character doesn't appear in a particular episode; IMDb recognizes this, and adds a (credit only) note next to the credit. Geeky Randy (talk) 00:47, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

More removal

I also think we should remove species, why is it important? They're either human or not.

• Call sign - what is the point of this?
• Specialty - the characters talents? Seems like a big OR issue
• Age/Date of birth/Date of death - per WP:IN-U they don't really have dates to go by and age is trivial. Do they remain the same age through the series, or should it be updated when a new episode has a new age.
• Spouse - change to partner, we should list significant others too
• Address - again, trivial, these are fictional characters with fictional addresses, not important
  • Last apperance - maybe on this one. A character may be killed, but it is OR to say they will never appear in flash backs in future episodes. CTJF83 GoUSA 22:08, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• Let's keep "species" for dogs, etc. I am removing it for human characters as useless and obvious.
• Let's remove "specialty", "call sign" as OR, "address" as useless.
• "Date of birth/date of death" it's confusing for fictional characters. This info can be put in the main article, thus delete it.
• I am not sure about "Last appereance". -- 22:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Magioladitis (talk • contribs)

I completely agree with the removal of call sign, specialty, birth/death/age, spouse, and address (what address??). Call sign, in particular, is just ridiculously useless. Species I'm inclined to say keep, as there are many non-human characters, however encourage not using it for humans (much like we don't put English on citations because its stating the most obvious). Last appearance only if first appearance is also removed, otherwise it can be denoted as the last volume, episode, etc (its not really OR as it is the last known appearance and should only be used for completed series). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean changing of spouse to partner, not removing it, correct? CTJF83 GoUSA 00:39, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Just a small note: We have to create a tracking category with deprecated parameters at some point. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:37, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Keep species for dogs? If I see a picture of a dog, I'd probably assume it was a dog. I agree with the removal of all of those sections, though I could see an argument for species when you're dealing with sci-fi characters. A lot of sci-fi character look human, but are in fact not human....so I would for keeping this one. There is not such thing as "last appearance". There's a "most recent", but that's trivial. For fictional characters, they cannot actually die...even when they do die. I've seen plenty of shows where characters come back, either to life or simply in flashbacks. It also doesn't really have significant value, as unless you understand where that episode is in the grand scheme of things (which you typically don't from a glance), then it means little.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I can agree to keep species for aliens or Star Trek characters and such. CTJF83 GoUSA 00:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

We can proceed. It's been enough days. Can someone change the code? -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Can I please get an admin to remove the above categories per the consensus. CTJF83 chat 08:51, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I can do it. Just to confirm: We remove: call sign, specialty, birth/death/age, spouse, and address. Right? -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:11, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes on all but spouse, please change spouse to partner (so we can list boyfriends, girlfriends, etc) CTJF83 chat 09:21, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, there is a significant other section. CTJF83 chat 09:22, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done but I am bit puzzled with the numbering of the variables. Category:Articles using Infobox character with deprecated parameters will keep the articles with deprecated parameters. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I have removed |age=, |born=, |death=, |specialty=, |callsign= and |residence= from the documentation. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:23, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I think age, birth, death and residence should be reuturned. They're pretty vital. --WölffReik (talk) 18:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Why? If their age is even mentioned, do they ever grow older? Are they the same age the whole series, or should their age increase every season? They also have no death, as they were never alive to begin with...take a look at WP:IN-U CTJF83 chat 20:11, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Does Bart Simpson grow older? -- Evertype·✆ 08:29, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

There are 1600+ articles tagged with Category:Articles using Infobox character with deprecated parameters. Who is going to start cleanup? -- Evertype·✆ 08:29, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I did some manually. We need a bot run probably. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:13, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Gender is for grammar

It should say Sex. -- Evertype·✆ 08:30, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Why? Gender is used for forms and why invite the childish vandalism that having a label of sex inevitably brings? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:11, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

You're right Evertype, but Collectonian makes a really good point. CTJF83 chat 17:50, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Bah. Collectionian's sig uses Comic Sans. Anyway, my comment stands. -- Evertype·✆ 18:08, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Mine doesn't use Comic Sans MS though; like you, I go with the default. Despite that, I agree with Collectonian; please read what Wikipedia has to say on Gender. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:19, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Age

I think that this template needs an age paraneter. Rock drum (talk·contribs·guestbook) 06:07, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Reason? Note how I gave a good valid reason for its removal. CTJF83 chat 07:31, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Updates

I realize that discussion is on going above, but I made a couple minor updates, which I hope are not controversial. (1) I changed the default background (header) colour to whatever is generated by {{Infobox television/colour}} since this template is typically used for television characters. (2) I added a "voice" parameter since there are many series where the voice actor is different from the portrayer (e.g., Seasame Street, or others mentioned above). I fully support the merging and removal of excessive fields. However, we do have so many "lbl#" and "data#" that are being used to skirt these in-universe fancruft issues. Let me know if any of my edits are controversial and I would be happy to either revert or discuss alternatives. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:45, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I reverted the colour change part per request on my talk page. I actually think we should use a fixed colour for all boxes and remove the ability to override the default. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:42, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Inclusion of

Requesting third party opinions regarding the inclusion of in-universe information--most specifically the family members section--in the infobox based on the criteria set forth by WP:WAF#Infoboxes.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:00, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

• We could do something similar with {{Infobox soap character}} for the family members. Certainly this has to remain to as small as possible and certainly we mustn't have any "Family tree" sections in the article. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:22, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Cause/Reason

Can we get rid of this field? It just encourages editors to put in stuff like "Stabbed by Dean Winchester with the "demon-killing knife" with help from Sam Winchester." It doesn't even make sense for real-world information, because often that requires a paragraph and a citation, and infoboxes are for neat little tidbits you can't really justify writing out in full sentences anywhere else.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 18:08, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd support that removal. It kind of goes with the topic above that I started about re-evaluating each of the categories in the infobox.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:39, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The large number of lbl#/data# fields would seem to be as big of a concern, if not bigger, since they can be used to circumvent the removal of any field. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:58, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Not sure about the cause one, but it would be nice to remove a few fields and see what drama that causes. Unfortunately, none of us are admins, I think. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 19:24, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I think we should have a limited number of custom fields (one or two), because I cannot think of too many instances where one character is going to require the use of multiple fields that are not present for any other character.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:09, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

How about if I start by adding a tracking category to see which articles are using high-numbered blank labels? (Yes, I am an admin per comment above). Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

That would be awesome, because we could see how high in frequency they are used, how many blank fields are used on average, and potentially (if your tracking indicates article titles) we could see what is being filled in for those cases.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:31, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

That would be cool. I think we've talking about fixing this template for years, but maybe we'll actually get somewhere this time. I've never heard of tracking categories, but they sound cool. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 22:49, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I support removal CTJF83 chat 23:11, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I hadn't seen the above discussion 'til now. I had to get that bee out of my bonnet. My take is like Bignole's: some characters require the custom fields (for instance, "Notable abilities" for characters for whom special abilities are significantly part of their conception/reception, a la Heroes). The good thing about reducing that to the lbl21 field is it doesn't automatically suppose it must be filled in -- which would cause people to write "high IQ, advanced medical knowledge" as Dr. Greg House's "power".~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 00:11, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

September 2010

{{editprotected}} Remove per above consensus. CTJF83 chat 02:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Can we please remove the "Cause/Reason" field now, then?~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 02:09, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll see if I can find an admin to do it for us. CTJF83 chat 02:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Need to do this gracefully if it's done, we don't know where that field is being used. Triona (talk) 02:20, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

What does that matter? Won't it just not show up on a page if the field is in use? CTJF83 chat 02:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

And wherever it is being used, it is of course, just crap information. (Thank you, Ctjf83 -- I didn't know how to make the request but now I do!)~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 02:46, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Note how I removed a field form this template, and Melinda Warner still has an entry in the 'last' spot, it just doesn't show up, template isn't messed up in any way. CTJF83 chat 03:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

 Removed — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:05, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Tracking

We have the following tracking categories

1. Category:Articles using Infobox character with deprecated parameters
2. Category:Articles using Infobox character with multiple unlabeled fields

They should start to fill up once the server re-caches the articles. This should give us an idea of how this template is being used in practice. Thanks, and let me know if you would like to track anything else! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 15:43, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for this! I'm cleaning up the Buffy ones as we speak.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 16:22, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

The category is split by number of fields, so the ones listed under 5 should have the most (e.g., see Betty Suarez). Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:26, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

You are fast, my example is no longer valid, so now see Elmyra Duff for an example, which will probably be cleaned up soon as well :) Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:08, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

The temptation in me is to go through all of them in the course of a day, but actually, it would be a fruitless endeavour for me personally I guess. Still, I quite enjoy it, it forces me to read about these characters and improves my general knowledge of fiction (which isn't the area I should be improving, granted...)~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 03:03, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I think we need to talk about how many custom fields we should limit everything to, then turn off the rest when we decide. After that, I wonder if we could create a bot to send out a message to every article using extra fields and notify them of the change and that they should look at WP:WAF and choose only what is "essential" to understanding the character.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:39, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

3 is generally a good rule of thumb to go with unless there is major concern those will be abused, ie if currently most articles are using 3+ custom fields.陣内_Jinnai 16:49, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

The question is, are those 3 categories that most articles are using for things that shouldn't be listed anyway? What I'd like to know is the average number of custom categories used properly and not as a bypass to get around WAF or this template (.e.g, Is a character like Superman using custom cats for "religon" or "shoe preference"). I just think this is going to take some time for us to review the articles just to see what the typical categories being used there are. Is is something that is being used properly, but is so frequently that maybe we need to re-add (or add for the first time) that as a concrete category?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:56, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

The first step in that process is to find out where the number of custom field usage drops off significantly.陣内_Jinnai 17:13, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm seeing a lot of powers/abilities and affiliation/relationships. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 17:16, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Affiliation is a useless one, because it frequently belongs to the body of the text. I see "powers" as useful where it stops editors devoting a whole section to a 2-word description, i.e. in Cordelia Chase the infobox lists "precognitive visions" and leaves details and whatnot to come out the Appearances section (eg. Cordelia becomes half-demon) and the Development section (eg. how visions humanized Cordelia, made her more likeable) where they highlight what is relevant.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 17:23, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, am I being too stringent in reverting this sort of edit?~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 00:24, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Powers is also marginal and often just a place where people though trivial powers giving undue weight to less important ones. I realize its popular, but I don't think we should sanction it. Keeping it as a custom field where it can be added when appropriate is fine.陣内_Jinnai 02:48, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Some of the information (blood type, sexual orientation, date of birth) is unnecessary. I move that we put in a limit at 3 custom fields, thereby making all fourth/fifth/sixth entries cease to work.02:50, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I 'll remove all the deprecated parameters using WP:AWB. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:02, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I removed a lot. Still some remaining to be updated/fixed. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:23, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Our we removing "Gender" and "Species"? I think these are things that for shows based in present day reality, a male character is obviously a male character when you see a picture of them. I think these are probably best left as "custom" for those special cases like in Battlestar Galatica or something Sci-Fi based where you might need to know what their species and gender is when it isn't clear.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:33, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I worked with the list of existing obsolete parameters. I didn't remove gender and species. IMO we should remove gender and species from all non-scifi series. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:36, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

There is also fantasy articles where those could be appropriate. Personally though I'd say if those groups feel the need for them and the current infobox with its limited custom fields isn't enough they could create their own. For most genres these 2 aren't needed and in many sci-fi/fantasy ones they aren't needed either.陣内_Jinnai 16:40, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I cannot see the need for any genre to require more than 3 or 4 relevant custom field additions, so I figured that "gender" and "species" could easily be used in the custom field. Otherwise, you end up with human males for Law & Order: SVU. (I've seen a couple already today).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:47, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

We should remove gender and species. Gender is rarely necessary; where it's worth discussing (ambiguity), it's best left to the article's prose to expound the interesting aspect of it. "Species" could be best presented as "Classification", "Race", etc. depending on franchise (e.g. Doctor Who has alien 'races', Pokemon has 'species' of Pokemon, a Slayer on Buffy is more of a classification than a race, etc.) Also, since when did these templates include nationality, religion, etc.? Why? Where is this ever going to matter?~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 20:58, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Merge family and relatives

Are there any objections to merging the family and relatives fields? Also, having both alias and nicknames seems a bit redundant. Comments? Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:47, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

• Agree with both CTJF83 chat 03:54, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
• I think we have some things to remove in addition to this based on the above discussion, but I agree with the merge and I also think that we don't need "nicknames". An alias and a nickname are not really the same thing, but at the same time I don't think nicknames are all that noteworthy for an encyclopedia to begin with. Few exceptions come to mind, Dr. "Bones" McCoy from Star Trek being one. Other than that, you see too many instances of its use filled in because some character jokingly called another character some name.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:04, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Agree with Bignole also...if nickname it will be in the opening sentence of the lead as in the example you gave. CTJF83 chat 04:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Unnamed family members

Would I be correct in thinking that unnamed family members shouldn't be included in infoboxes? I'm almost positive I've seen this discussed before, but I can't find where. As a specific example, this is the article prompting my enquiry, but it's something I see quite regularly across a range of series. I can't imagine such information being particularly useful, and AFAIC, if these family members are relevant to the character they can be discussed in the body of the article (though if they're not relevant enough to have even been given names, their overall relevance probably isn't high). Is there community consensus or a relevant guideline on this? Frickative 05:53, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I concur...clearly everyone has a mother and a father (at least biologically) so saying "unnamed (parent)" is just ridiculous. I think any unnamed relative is pretty pointless too, it doesn't add anything to the character if they've never appeared on the show/movie. CTJF83 chat 12:50, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

IMO, there shouldn't be any family member in the infobox that doesn't have their own page - as they clearly are not notable by themselves and thus must not be "essential to understanding the character" to need to be placed in the infobox. The infobox shouldn't be a family tree, which is what I see a lot of.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:18, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

That's not what notable means, but no, unnamed family members shouldn't be there. There are exceptions, when a character is known by a title, such as the Doctor.陣内_Jinnai 15:38, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

This is definitely one of my pet peeves. Someone added family to the Buffy characters templates and I realised I'd lost hope, people were going to be adding "Hank Summers (father)" to Buffy's article forever from then on. Although one might conclude that Dawn is probably important enough for a mention, the infobox presents this information so matter-of-factly. When the relation is at all interesting, isn't it best dealt with in the article's prose? In the case of Dawn, her introduction was a massive behind-the-scenes creative decision that retconned the character's "real" histories. I certainly wouldn't put Dawn in Buffy's lead section, because it is interesting but not immediately relevant; the infobox ought to give essential information we think you should know about the character going into the article, essentially on par with the lead section. Another article where this crops up a lot for me is Laurie Strode - I want to say "yes, Michael should be mentioned, of course", and extend this to the children around whom the franchise is built, but I typically think we draw the line before Judith Myers, the adoptive and biological parents, et al. Thoughts?~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 17:08, 8 December 2010 (UTC)