Template talk:Infobox soap character/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Durations for spouses

I believe durations for spouses should not be used. This is for multiple reasons.

1. It's false. A character may have been married to another character, say for example, during the years 2010–12, but fiction exists in a permanent present state, and in many cases, past episodes are still available to watch in many ways, be it a repeat on another channel, being available online or recorded in some other way – therefore a 2011 episode could be watched 2015, and it would look like the two characters are married in 2015, therefore it is false.
2. It's not important. It's in-universe information that doesn't need to be presented in the infobox. It's far easier to just list the names of spouses someone has had, and the article can explain the rest. The infobox is meant to contain as little in-universe information as possible.
3. The character may not have existed. Listing a year of marriage that happened off-screen or as part of a character's backstory, for a character that didn't exist in that year, is nonsense (e.g. Vincent Hubbard arrived in EastEnders in 2015, already married to Kim Fox, so to say he was married to her in 2014 is nonsense as he didn't exist.). Characters are not real people, they are created by writers.

So please can we remove the guidance stating that "durations are listed" for spouses? Even if people want to use durations, it should be optional for at least the above reasons (and in fact, it's for reason #3 that many EastEnders characters don't have a complete duration and there appears to be a consensus for this). Thanks. –anemoneprojectors– 11:01, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

As I explained here, your third reason is just not correct, and you sorta proved that by what you said in the end. When you say Vincent Hubbard "didn't exist in that year" and dismiss his existence as "nonsense," you are saying that simply because no actor portrayed him. However, you then go on to state that characters are "created by writers" (not actors) and, as I pointed out at the Vincent Hubbard talk page, the writers created him when they first started writing about him as an unseen character (common in all types of fiction).Cebr1979 (talk) 11:37, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Vincent Hubbard is not the only character this applies to. We don't know what goes on in writers' minds, though, so how do we know when a character was created? I'm sorry that I don't recall exactly how it went with Kim, but maybe the writers decided she was married, and then later decided that her husband would be Vincent Hubbard and would become a character. But forgetting that (because I can see this being endless arguments about when Vincent was created), Vincent Hubbard is not the only character this applies to. –anemoneprojectors– 13:10, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Removing marital durations is going to be a big hurdle to try and make; you're going to have mass IP's re-adding that information, and it is not going to be an easy adjustment to make. IP's are already trying to bring back old fluff into articles, and are not handling the new alias/other names parameter (which I was also against). I just don't know if it is the right route to take. I remember when it was recommended to make a "Current spouse" and "Former spouses" parameter, and I think that would also be too-much detail; iboxes are meant to be an over-view. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 12:58, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree, but at least I'd like to get the EastEnders pages right. There already seems to be consensus for it in that multiple editors are removing marriage years that happened before a character existed, and are reverting other editors that insert these years. Infoboxes are meant to be an overview, which is another good reason to remove qualifying text such as supposed years of marriage. –anemoneprojectors– 13:10, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Okay, then I think if the marriage years are not explicitly stated, then sure, they shouldn't be included; but if the marriage did take place on-screen or the date of their marriage year has been revealed (either by character stating such or seen on document), then it can be included. But simply removing years all-together is definitely not the way to go in this case. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 13:13, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree. With this Vincent character however, the date of their marriage year has been revealed.Cebr1979 (talk) 13:25, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict, reply to livelikemusic) That's fair enough. I suppose I wouldn't necessarily object to years of marriage for someone like Gail McIntyre, where all her marriages happen during the time she is in the show, if people really want them there, but, like when years were removed for durations of occupations in all EastEnders articles, it would do absolutely no harm if there were no years at all. But I do object to, for example, Liz McDonald's marriage being listed as starting in 1974, when she didn't exist then. I can't really recommend saying that years shouldn't be used at all, but the template documentation as it stands is apparently forcing years into infoboxes where they may not be necessary. –anemoneprojectors– 13:27, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I just realised I already started a discussion on this before but it died. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Soap Operas#In-universe dates in infoboxes. –anemoneprojectors– 13:40, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure where to continue the discussion now since I received a reply on that older one tonight. But I just came across this edit, which seems to be a great example of why years should be removed. Den did exist in 1999, though he'd been killed off and the decision to turn that into a fake death is unlikely to have been made by then. When he returned "from the grave" in 2003, he was married to Chrissie Watts, said to be from 1999. Although I can totally see where this editor was coming from, I had to revert it because it could potentially look like Den was married to Chrissie in 1985 when he was married to Angie, but in episodes from 1999 to 2003, there was no indication he was married to Chrissie. –anemoneprojectors– 21:48, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

That is a good point, actually. The same thing has happened to characters like Marlena Evans when, some thirty years later, Alex North showed up saying they'd been married that whole time and completely invalidated all of her previous marriages up to that point! There are also characters like Bo Brady, John Black, and Hope Williams Brady whose marriage history is one giant mess due to them all having been put through brainwashing stories and retcons (mostly due to the Princess Gina debacle). I had actually been thinking of returning to this conversation anyhow because with common SORASing of child characters, someone like Abby Newman was born onscreen while her mother was married to Brad Carlton, meaning she was born between 2000 & 2006 (according to the marriage dates listed on both pages) however, given that Abby is now a woman in her late twenties/early thirties, those marriage dates no longer make any sense when thought of in terms of her birth... I do now think that marriage dates should be removed from the infoboxes.Cebr1979 (talk) 22:52, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

There are so many strange and special cases in soaps, and it would make sense to at least remove durations for those ones, if not all. I guess it would also mean removing dates that someone was a stepparent from the infobox, as those are essentially the same thing. –anemoneprojectors– 08:31, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Step-parents just shouldn't be listed at all, in my opinion. At the rate soap characters get married, divorced, re-married, annulled, re-married, divorced, dead, back from the dead, marriage never legally dissolved, re-divorced, etc... step-parents are nothing more than glorified in-laws and we will forever be updating who their step-parents/kids are/aren't. However, there was a consensus talk (based solely on multiple users original research as to what a step-parent even is) that decided legal fathers can't be legal fathers anymore and have to be step-parents so, until that talk is over-turned, the dates need to be there for that parameter otherwise every soap opera character will look like the product of polygamy, which they aren't.Cebr1979 (talk) 21:23, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Sometimes the relationship with the step-parent is more notable than that with the real parent. In EastEnders, we only list step-parents if they were involved in the upbringing of the child or the relationship was notable in some other way. We don't have masses of step-parents listed. But this discussion is about dates, not the inclusion of step-parents, and dates are used for spouses and step-parents, so if spouse dates are removed, then step-parent dates should be removed. –anemoneprojectors– 15:32, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

In that, though, how can we list a "step-parent" like John Abbott (even though that's not what he was...) in the Ashley Abbott infobox without listing the others? If we only list one step-parent, it'll look like she only ever had one step-parent and... she didn't. She had more than one! Many more than one! That's exactly one of the (many) reasons why original research isn't allowed on wikipedia.Cebr1979 (talk) 20:21, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the show or the characters, but this discussion is about dates. Currently, dates for stepparents exist in some articles, so if spouse dates are removed (which you agreed with), do you agree that stepparent dates are also removed? –anemoneprojectors– 13:00, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

No. I have made that clear. For as long that step-parent parameter is there and used incorrectly, the dates are needed. Otherwise, as I've said, soap characters will look like the product of polygamy, which they aren't.Cebr1979 (talk) 21:20, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I disagree that it will look like polygamy. It will just look like a list of stepparents. If years aren't needed for spouses, there's no way they should be needed for any other family member in the infobox. AnemoneProjectors 15:19, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Another reason to remove this has just popped up in EastEnders. Phil Mitchell has filed for divorce and his wife Sharon Watts has agreed and signed divorce papers. This doesn't make them legally divorced but people have already added a date saying that they are divorced. Removing in-universe dates would completely elimiate this problem, especially when someone files for divorce in December, and we hear nothing of a decree absolute so we've just assumed it happened the following year. Even if Phil and Sharon are divorced now, if I watch an episode from last week in 3 years' time, they're still married and it will be 2019, but wait, the infobox says they're not married in 2019! So it will be completely wrong! It is not real! AnemoneProjectors 13:09, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

This "what if I'm watching a re-run" example of yours is so tired. When people watch re-runs, they know they're watching re-runs and, even if they don't and they come here, they'd have to be blind not to figure it out (and blind people can't come here). I get that fictional characters exist in a constant state of the present and whatnot but... the constant "re-run" example of yours is ridiculous and completely insulting to Wikipedia readers intelligence. 'Simpsons' re-runs are on all the time. Do I think Marge's sister is still married to Troy McClure because of it? No. I'm intelligent. And so is the rest of the world.Cebr1979 (talk) 21:42, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

So the best solution then is to remove the durations. I currently watch Hollyoaks about five weeks behind the actual broadcast. They're not repeats to me though, in fact I wasn't talking about repeats, I was talking about recordings or on-demand services. In the UK, Home and Away is eight weeks behind the Australian broadcast. In the USA, EastEnders is 10 years behind the UK broadcast. So I can't accept that my argument is tired. It is perfectly valid. Imagine your soap opera is a film series. You wouldn't say a character got married in 2016 just beacuse that's the year one of the films came out. Just because it's a soap opera doesn't make it any different to any other work of fiction. And blind people can come here if they want to. Plus you completely ignored the main point of my previous comment. AnemoneProjectors 23:38, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

No... Lol! Removing the durations is not the best solution (at least not yet), that's just what you want (and don't mention "ignoring" to me again: reading your comments, no matter how long inbetween them, is always one big circle and that's another tactic that's grown really tired). Please start acknowledging what others say to you. Neither the internet, nor an encyclopedia, revolves around you and your television schedule. If a character dies tomorrow... Guess what? Wikipedia will mention it and nobody is going to wait 5 weeks for you to get caught up. That's not only ridiculous... it's absurd!Cebr1979 (talk) 01:54, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out that you know you're 5 weeks behind... and so would anyone else. Just like someone watching a re-run knows they are watching a re-run. "I'm behind" or "What if I re-watch an episode in 2019?" is a pointless argument.Cebr1979 (talk) 02:21, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Of curse I'm not saying Wikipedia should wait for me to watch something before it's updated (I know I'm behind, though not everyone in the world will know how far behind they are). Anyway "repeats" or "being behind" isn't my only argument and isn't even the main reason, so to me it does look like you are ignoring the rest. I was only posting another reason that came up about Phil and Sharon in EastEnders, and maybe I should have left it at that and not mentioned the 2019 thing (even though it makes perfect sense to me, real-world versus in-universe dates). So sorry about that. Anyway, on 1 October 2015 you were agreeing with me and for very excellent reasons that you gave. AnemoneProjectors 19:47, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Yep, I did. And now I don't. I can't take you seriously, I'm going to have to be perfectly honest. When you don't get your way, you create new "rules" out of thin air in order to get yourself your way in the end. Rather than going to a talk page, you just revert to your heart's content. It is hard to keep up with you because, as previously noted, you ignore previous conversations and just constantly bring up the same nonsense points (watching old episodes, so and so not existing because no actor had been cast) and then, at your earliest convenience, you jump to "Well, it seems like the best thing to do is give me my way," type of posts. I don't think this really has anything to do with marriage dates, I think you're trying to get your way on marriage dates so you can then use that to get your way on the step-parent dates. Would I be right in that? Is this conversation just being used to propel that other one in your favour?Cebr1979 (talk) 20:39, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

You just did it again. Where are these "rules" (that coincidentally get you your way) coming from??? This is not the first time you've been asked.Cebr1979 (talk) 21:30, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This is completely off topic, but there is already prior consensus for the amount of family included in the infobox, so I'm not making up rules out of thin air at all. By reverting my edit, which I explained in the edit summary, and other edits I made with it, I think you are being disruptive just to try to make a point. I think marriage dates and step-family dates should be treated in the same way, so I am not trying to push one to get the other. I want them both removed at the same time, for exactly the same reasons, mainly that it is in-universe information that does not belong in the infobox. AnemoneProjectors 21:40, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Anemone: You want them removed... yes. But that hasn't been agreed to yet... so why are you removing them? This is bogus. You don't get to tell me (or anyone else) to go read a whole page. You have to pinpoint where the exact conversation is that states what you're claiming (and I did show you where it says that). If you want to mention "disruptive", let's talk about your constant reverting, "IDHT" attitude in ignoring everything previously said to you, and your phoney "rules" made out of thin air that give you your way. Let's do that at ANI. I'll compile it and let you know when I'm done.Cebr1979 (talk) 21:51, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Still completely off topic but never mind. I'm going to look for the relevant prior discussion(s) if I really have to, but as an editor of fictional subjects you should already be aware of WP:WAF-INFO, which says the infobox should contain (among other things) "in-universe information essential to understanding the entity's context in the overall fiction" and "infoboxes about fictional entities should avoid delving into minutiae, such as information only mentioned in supplementary backstory". Is that good enough prior consensus for you? Anyway, back to the dates. Yes I removed Vincent's marriage date, not because I want in-universe dates removed, but because he's been married to Kim for his entire duration. There are other examples (though not loads, as typical of soaps, marriages tend to end one way or another). Gita Kapoor is one. Even if the character starts off married (like Vincent) but the marriage ends while the character is still around, we don't add a start date, just an end date, even if a supposed (in-universe) start-of-marriage date is known. Anyway, all I asked for is that durations are optional, which they currently don't appear to be from this template's guidance. I wanted to build a consensus either way. You did agree with me, you probably only claim to have changed your mind because you forgot you agreed. AnemoneProjectors 22:36, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I only read as far as "if I really have to" and then stopped. You do have to. And you know that.Cebr1979 (talk) 22:58, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Get back to me when you've bothered to read the rest. AnemoneProjectors 23:24, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Link to the consensus talks yet? Get back to me with that. An admin should not be fooling around with phantom consensus talks and, no... I am not reading a whole page you've linked to - give me the conversation you claim has happened or... we'll have to move on as though you made it all up. That's how Wikipedia has decided "Phantom Consensus Talks need to be treated. I mean... how long have you had now? Really.Cebr1979 (talk) 19:49, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I've already linked you to three guidelines (all of which you are already aware of anyway as a Wikipedia editor), which are all built on consensus, and (as a Wikipedia editor) you already know that consensus is not just built on discussion. By your reasoning, if I ask someone to cite a source for something, directing them to WP:V is not good enough, I have to find some ancient discussion where the contents of WP:V were decided upon. Show me the Wikipedia policy about your so-called "phantom consensus talks" and I might consider it. AnemoneProjectors 20:24, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I've linked to it multiple times now (most recently in the post you just responded to).Cebr1979 (talk) 20:37, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Unless, of course, you're saying a whole board full of admins is wrong and only you are right about that too? Cebr1979 (talk) 20:38, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

You linked to a discussion, not a policy. Show me the policy that says if I show you a guideline, I have to also show to the discussion(s) that created it. You can't because there isn't one, since policies and guidelines are proof of consensus. So just accept that you are wrong. You are already aware of WP:SOAPS, WP:WAF-INFO and Template:Infobox soap character guidelines, so stop pretending you're not and stop disrupting Wikipedia. AnemoneProjectors 20:46, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm so over you and your nonsense. Continuing here. Next stop: ArbCom. You shouldn't be an admin.Cebr1979 (talk) 21:17, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

User:AnemoneProjectors: I have now read all of the pages you have linked to from top to bottom and there is not one thing anywhere that states "Durations for spouses" are not needed in the infobox when a character has been married their entire duration. Not one. Anywhere. There is, however, this that states "Durations are listed." I've put that information back now and I do hope you stop being such a disruption with your phoney baloney rules, goose-chase policies and phantom consensus talks.Cebr1979 (talk) 10:42, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

You keep changing what you're complaining about and the location of the discussion, so if I'm giving you links to something else you're complaining about, you only have yourself to blame. Your complaint that I'm not showing you a discussion is about a family member, not a duration. In this discussion, all I asked for was "durations for spouses" to be made optional. I want to hear from someone else, because two people arguing isn't the way to build consensus. Also, consensus is not only made by discussion and other articles don't have durations for spouses already where they've been married theit whole time in the programme. Do what you want, I'm giving up on you. Take care. AnemoneProjectors 10:56, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh, thank goodness! you take care as well!Cebr1979 (talk) 10:57, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

...and... no. I've always asked for proof of a consensus on everything you've claimed has been reached by consensus, not just Aunt Cynthia. But, oh, well. As I've said... take care.Cebr1979 (talk) 11:02, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Actually it was with Cynthia when you started accusing me of "making up rules" and that was why you reported me to ANI. AnemoneProjectors 12:57, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh, no. Not even close! You should re-read everything at ANI there. Cynthia is but a footnote, barely a mention.Cebr1979 (talk) 15:19, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree with User:livelikemusic's point about including marriages (and divorces) if they took place on-screen or if the marriage years have been explicitly stated (on-screen or in a reliable source). If they haven't, then they don't get included. I worry that by eliminating the years some readers might think certain characters are married to more than one person at the same time. Also, what about those characters that married the same person more than once? The years help show there were multiple marriages. If we remove them, do we add the spouse's name to the ibox for every instance? - JuneGloom07 Talk 17:22, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

This is basically what we do, at least in the articles I watch - if two characters are introduced as married, then no start date for the marriage is included, and if they leave as married then no end date is included, but if one leaves and one stays and then a divorce is mentioned then we add the end date (and if they marry or divorce on screen then the dates are added). If the dates were to be removed, I wouldn't suggest adding the names twice for when someone marries the same person twice, but it could be that "(twice)" is added instead. I'm not sure that readers would assume that characters are in bigamous marriages. It's just that I've come across a number of examples where I've felt it was better not to include any years, I already mentioned Vincent Hubbard. I think one was when Phil Mitchell and Sharon Watts received a decree nisi and people started adding an end date but they never applied for the decree absolute and remained married. Plus there was confusion over Nick Cotton's marriage dates. There's also the matter of marriages that have already ended before a character arrives, or that start after a character leaves... and if two characters marry on screen and then leave together still married, are they assumed to be married forever? I imagine some future version of Wikipedia showing fictional characters having been married for hundreds of years! Naima Jeffery is the only example I can think of off the top of my head. anemoneprojectors 22:50, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Years next to stepchildren

[Comment removed by user]

I don't know if we ever resolved this in past discussions, but I personally agree that there are few appropriate uses for date spans in the family section of infoboxes.— TAnthony^Talk 19:39, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Personally I support the removal of all date ranges from family members, therefore for the sake of this discussion I support the removal of years next to stepfamily members. anemoneprojectors 14:38, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I also support the removal of years from step parents/children. I don't know when it started or why, but it's just more unnecessary clutter. Hopefully, the article would mention when/how a character became a step parent or child. - JuneGloom07 Talk 20:19, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

[Comment removed by user]

I wouldn't say this discussion has received enough input for real consensus, but I think historically most interested editors have agreed on minimal dates and such in the Family section. Are there specific articles that you're interested in changing? I've found that it is usually one editor who decides to add something like this to all the characters of a particular show they're interested in, and then it might be copied by some other editors. You could boldly "fix" these articles as you see fit, but you may want to first identify who has introduced this trivia and invite them here.— TAnthony^Talk 17:49, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

[Comment removed by user]

@Grangehilllover: I thought this specific discussion was about removing years from step parents and step children, but you appear to be removing years from marriages too – [1], [2] and [3]? I don't think there is a consensus for the removal of marriage years (yet). - JuneGloom07 Talk 17:06, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

[Comment removed by user]

I understand it ties in with that, as you mentioned above, but this was a discussion about date for step families. Since the durations for spouses discussion doesn't seem to have a consensus at the moment, I don't think you should have removed the durations from the iboxes. If you think durations for spouses should be removed, then I suggest commenting on that discussion. - JuneGloom07 Talk 21:04, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree that there's no consensus to remove dates from marriages. It should be, and is being, discussed separately. anemoneprojectors 22:27, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

So, to ask the question, should the years appearing next to stepchildren and stepparents be removed or have we yet to reach an actual consenus? Soaper1234 (talk) 08:30, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

We should close this discussion and start again as the person starting it has removed their comments. anemoneprojectors 19:49, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

On this topic, I've seen a couple of users trying to add 'end dates' for the stepchildren of widows and widowers (Diane Sugden being the example I've worked on). This is fundamentally incorrect - you don't stop being a stepmother or father because your spouse dies, as you would if you got divorced. Additionally, we should always consider the relationship before blindly implementing rules. Diane still has very close relationships with all her stepchildren and very much fulfils the role of a mother figure long after Jack's death. Another example would be Susan Kennedy - if your role as a step-parent ends when your spouse dies, strictly speaking she was only stepmother to the Kinski children for about an hour, when she actually brought them up as her own for several years. Smurfmeister (talk) 14:36, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Same as Jack Branning, who is bringing up his wife's son, after she died on the night of their wedding. I just think there are so many reasons to remove years. In a lot of articles I watch, the stepparent/stepchildren years were removed as a result of this discussion, as it was certainly going that way even if the consensus wasn't final. If we decide that this is now the case, we should update the template documentation. —anemoneprojectors— 19:21, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I think everyone was in agreement about the removal of years, even the editor who removed their comments. I'd certainly support an update of the template documentation to reflect the discussion. - JuneGloom07 Talk 13:39, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, shall we change it? — anemoneprojectors 10:34, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Having just looked, the documentation only insists on years for spouses, not for stepparents and stepchildren, so would we need to add that years are not used for them? — anemoneprojectors 10:39, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

I think you can change it now. I guess that a note about not adding years for stepparents and stepchildren could be useful. - JuneGloom07 Talk 01:34, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I've added a note that durations are not required. — anemoneprojectors 15:36, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Great-uncles/great-aunts and second cousins

I think including sections for great-uncles/great-aunts and second cousins is seriously needed now, to prevent over-crowding of the "other relatives" section. This problem is most notable (in my experience) when dealing with members of the Dingle family from Emmerdale, however over-crowding is becoming an issue on many other character pages - take Tiffany Butcher for example; her "other relatives" section currently has 16 characters crowding it, however if these sections were to be added her "other relatives" section would have five with the other 11 characters being spread across the other three sections. Adding these sections would present a tidier page with easier to read information. Connorguy99 (talk) 17:14, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I would be opposed to adding more family parameters. Family members should be kept to a minimum and adding more parameters will encourage the addition of non-notable relationships. Tiffany Butcher may have 16 "other relatives" listed but I'm sure many of them should be removed, especially the ones who are young children. People tend to add characters when they have simply shared a scene, but these aren't notable storylines. — ᴀnemoneᴘroᴊecтors 14:05, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

I'll try cut down some relatives. Couldn't something like collapsible element be added to other relatives? Grangehilllover (talk) 15:35, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Family is already collapsed so I don't think it can be collapsed within that. — ᴀnemoneᴘroᴊecтors 17:21, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi @AnemoneProjectors:, I know it's been a long time, but the conversation below just got me thinking: couldn't the collapsible family section just be done away with because to be honest, it just doesn't seem relative anymore like "Adoptive father" when some characters have 2 "Adoptive fathers". How about:

Tiffany Butcher
EastEnders character
Portrayed by	Maisie Smith
Duration	2008–2014, 2016, 2018–
First appearance	Episode 3552 1 April 2008 (2008-04-01)
Classification	Present; regular
Introduced by	Diederick Santer (2008) Sean O'Connor (2016) John Yorke (2018)
Spin-off appearances	Last Tango in Walford (2010)
In-universe information Other names Tiffany Dean Occupation Student

And then maybe a paragraph in the article titled "Family" or something...

Family

As Tiffany is the daughter of Bianca and Ricky, she is the sister of Liam, the maternal half-sister of Morgan and the paternal half-sister of Kira Salter: Whitney is also considered a sibling of Bianca's children.

BUT because in the infobox, relatives got added just upon meeting and if it's in a paragraph, have references to back up a relation is notable. This is just an example. Could this work and cut down the clutter? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grangehilllover (talk • contribs) 22:12, June 1, 2018 (UTC)

References

I think explaining all of character's relationships in prose like this is sort of the opposite of what we should be doing. While I'd expect notable spouses, parents, siblings, or children to be mentioned in the lead, a well-written plot summary will illustrate the relationships naturally. A family section would be largely redundant, as in the Tiffany Butcher article, where her parents, brother, and connection to Whitney are noted in the first paragraph of the Storylines section. And by the way, your citation above doesn't mention Morgan or Kira.— TAnthony^Talk 23:08, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Some questions

I was largely inactive during the time a few years back when several parameters were being added to this template or updated. I've been looking through archived discussions, but I have some questions about usage (the documentation isn't quite up to date), and some "conversation starters" regarding content:

1. I'm unclear about what |appeared= (Appeared in) and |only= (Appeared on) are used for. There are |spinoffs= and |crossover= parameters already, so...?
2. What is |breed=, and which characters are using it? Can I assume it has something to do with |owner=? Do we really have articles for soap opera pets?
3. I was "around" when |years= (Duration) was added, but was never sure of its usefulness since we seem to always note years next to performers names. For an articles like Peter Barlow (Coronation Street) or Susan Barlow, it's practically an identical recap to the Performers section. Kevin Buchanan looks more reasonable because there were multiple consecutive performers, but it still also a rehash.
4. Can we revisit this discussion, in which those involved agreed that |residence= and |home= should be deleted? I'm wondering what current active editors think.
5. I'm also not sure about the appropriateness of |introducer=, though I realize it was added by consensus in 2012. I think |creator= (writer) is notable, but FYI, it is not really the EP who "decides" to introduce a character, or bring them back. Further, Peter Barlow (Coronation Street) is a great example of how potentially insane it is to list every EP who was in charge when the character was reintroduced, as is suggested by the documentation. What does this really lend to the understanding of the character or his/her development? Sourced information about specific situations where someone other than the writer had some impact on the character's use or development can be noted in the article.

Thanks!— TAnthony^Talk 21:48, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

@TAnthony:

Regarding (3) |years=. It's very helpful at Will Horton, where it provides instant clarity, where, because an actor has returned after another actor has been in the role, the dates against the actors cannot be in chrononological order. I imagine it is also helpful at other pages where the same situation has occured. I support its continuation.

Regarding (4) |residence= A character's residence can change so much during its lifetime that the info here is highly likely to be invalid. I'd say it's not essential information, and it seems to be essentially trivia that, though certainly of fan-interest, has little practical meaning. It's not key, introductory, primary information imo.

Regarding (5) |introducer= A soap character can return many times and listing each e.p. when this happens can really overload infoboxes. Moreover, it is not primary information - it is often too much information (to be presented up front). When there *is* an interesting story behind the return of the character, which includes the involvement of executive producers, this info will very likely to already be presented in the body of the article, and it is more helpfully presented there. The displayed name of the field is also problematic. It is not obvious to new readers that it's referring to executive producers, plus a return-story writer is as much a "re-introducer", if not more so, than the executive producer. I could get behind discontinuing it's use for re-introductions, as the "development" section can ably carry this information where it is notable, but perhaps this is really a case of the need for better guidelines, which emphasize good judgement, and which state it is better to use the body of the article than to overload the infobox with re-introducing producers. (Regarding you FYI comment, I don't think it is as clear cut as that - both ew and hw are involved in re-introductions. For example, according to a recent article Days of Our Lives' executive producer Greg Meng was pursuing the possibility of Chandler Massey's return to Days before Carlivati was headwriter. It's also a matter of record that Meng invited Deidre Hall back to the show at a signing event.)

Aliveness Cascade (talk) 14:19, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I believe |appeared= and |only= are mainly used for notable, one episode guest appearances, such as Alison Slater and Dale Madden.

And you're right that |breed= and |owner= do go together. They are a few notable animals, including Bouncer, Bossy, Wellard (GA) and Roly. - JuneGloom07 Talk 18:45, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

3 —— I think it works, especially when there is only one portrayer of a specific role (i.e. Carly Tenney, Nicole Walker, etc. It serves its purpose in my honest point of view.

4 —— I do believe |residence= and |home= should not removed; it's fan-cruft than anything else. Much like why |cause= was removed. I genuinely do not see its served purpose in the field of today's soap articles.

5 —— I am in the believe that |introducer= should include more than one EP if—and only if— the role is recast after being off-canvas for a certain amount of time, or if the character crosses over to another soap opera (i.e. Lauren Fenmore). Though, at the same time, I am also torn on mentioning anything more than the first executive producer(s) to introduce the character, etc. Case in point: at the Anna Devane article — is it truly important to cite Frank Valentini as the "introducer" of Anna Devane, especially given that it was Finola Hughes to return to the role and it was not really an introduction to the character? I do believe there needs to be more specific clarification on when it is appropriate to list more than the initial introducer of a character, otherwise, like you previously cited at the Peter Barlow article, it becomes insane. Though, I must admit, UK/Australian soap opera editors do go a bit over-the=-top with some of the editing chocies they make, especially when it comes to the infobox — as exampled by the now-defunct {{Infobox soap character 2}}. That is just my two-cents on some of these points. livelikemusic talk! 00:15, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

We all seem to be pretty much on the same page with this so far, though it looks like we need to improve the documentation to better explain the uses of |appeared=, |only=, |breed=, and |owner=. And I'm pleasantly surprised that there are decent articles for soap pets LOL. I have a huge problem with "introducer" though, and I'm not even sure how this came about in the first place. The creator (writer) is important in the real world because these people actually get residuals when their characters are used and the writer is no longer with the show. The EP at the time of creation is not really a "thing" that should be tracked in an infobox. It's great if and when we have sourced information within the article documenting an EP's role in bringing in a character, but this seems like the exception rather than the rule, and doesn't necessarily warrant inclusion in an infobox. I'm willing to leave things alone if consensus really loves this information, but as suggested above, is it notable to list the EP every time a character is brought back? That is like listing every writer who has ever written a character. I think this was added with good intentions, but it's gotten out of hand, and we should definitely reshape the guidelines.— TAnthony^Talk 17:57, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I support the removal of home/residence. Gail McIntyre has a long list of residences but it is completely meaningless unless you're a die-hard fan of the show. All it says to me is "she moved around a lot". EastEnders articles haven't used it for a long time for this reason. I'm not sure that the introducer is that important - certainly the creator is, but the introducer is simply the person who was EP for the show at the time the character is introduced, but then again I think it's good to know who made the decision to introducer or bring in a character. That isn't always the EP though, so maybe it's best to remove it? — ᴀnemoneᴘroᴊecтors 14:53, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree with AnemoneProjectors regarding Residence, and also support its removal. — Aliveness Cascade (talk) 16:09, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

With regards to Introduced by I would either support its total removal, or have the notes changed to say that it only be used for the original introducing e.p. where the creator is unknown. I cannot support its use for repeated re-introductions — because the headwriter is at least as important in re-introductions, and to include execs but not headwriters is absurd. Furthermore a list of re-introducing executive producers is *not* key primary information — it's too much information! Notable people involved in re-introducing a character can, and likey will, be mentioned in the development section of the article whether they are writers or producers. — Aliveness Cascade (talk) 16:09, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

So is there any consensus yet? I'd like to see a conclusion reached as I really dislike discussions that just fade away with nothing happening! — ᴀnemoneᴘroᴊecтors 13:34, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi, thank you AP for trying to move this forwards. I think we do have consensus that |residence= and |home= be removed. Regarding |years= (Duration) and |introducer= (Introduced by) I believe we have consensus that the status quo is not okay, but the way forward has not yet reached consensus. I agree wholeheartedly that |years= (Duration) is pointlessly cluttering many infoboxes with info that is already present, and presented better, right above it and below it in |portrayer=, |first= and |last=, eg. at Peter Barlow, Susan Barlow, Dorian Lord. I believe |years= (Duration) is best not used in these cases, as it is pointless messy clutter, and I've just deleted Duration at Bill Horton for this very reason - and it looks way better without it! I propose that |years= (Duration) be used in future for cases where the character has been killed off and then had a return-from-the-dead storyline, as with Will Horton and Den Watts. In such cases it is providing pertinent key info, that |portrayer=, |first= and |last= do not convey. If others agree, then it is a question of creating new wording for the usage note. With regards to |introducer=, I propose that we implement a complete change in its use, only using it when the creating writer is unknown, and not use it for re-introductions at all. We cannot in my opinion keep giving special credit to executive producers whilst leaving re-introducing headwriters uncredited. It is completely unjustifiable, and creates a mess of Way-Too-Much-Information in infoboxes. Aliveness Cascade (talk) 16:54, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree 100% with everything you just wrote.— TAnthony^Talk 17:04, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks TA! As a counterexample regarding |years= (Duration), its use at Marlena Evans looks really neat. In her case, with only one actor (Deidre Hall), years of portrayal haven't been shown against her name, and |years= (Duration) alone is used to display them. And it looks great! So ... maybe we need to have the usage note encompass this use, where there is just one actor. Aliveness Cascade (talk) 14:33, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Aliases used

Infoboxes really need to distinguish between pseudonyms and true names, and I propose a new category that displays as "Aliases used:" to contrast with "Other names:" which would then just be used for true names. I introduced the idea here Aliveness Cascade (talk) 20:45, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

The absence of Adoptive and Step siblings is anomalous. Please voice support for their inclusion.

We have Adoptive Parents, Adoptive father, Adoptive mother, Adoptive children, Adoptive sons, Adoptive daughters.

And yet we don't have Adoptive sibling, Adoptive brothers, Adoptive sisters!

We have Stepparents, Stepfather, Stepmother, Stepchildren, Stepsons, Stepdaughters.

And yet we don't have Stepsiblings, Stepbrothers, Stepsister!

It's a real gap in provision! Adoptive and step siblings are just as much siblings as half siblings, which are included! All siblings are part of the nuclear family, and all of them merit representation in the infobox!

Articles currently use makeshift work arounds using brackets. Let's have a neater cleaner look, and put them in proper categories! Aliveness Cascade (talk) 00:21, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Here's the thing. If you want stepsiblings and adoptive siblings to appear neatly in infoboxes, they need their own parameters. For example, if we do a make-shift stepbrother or adoptive brother now, it has to be added to the full brother category with a (step) or (adoptive) in brackets. The problem with this? It's in the wrong place! For things to look neat all the biological siblings should appear together, and then the non-biological siblings together. Now, if you add a makeshift (step) brother, or a makeshift (adoptive) brother they will appear above actual biological siblings, above full sisters and half-siblings which is odd. Now I get in real-life a siblings a sibling and it doesn't matter, but here, when we're trying to present character relations in an encyclopedia, yes, the presentation matters. It looks weird with a stepbrother appearing above full sisters. So I propose these new categories, and they should appear under the biological siblings, like so:

• siblings
• half-siblings
• adoptive siblings
• stepsiblings

... And I've put adoptive siblings above stepsiblings here, but that could go either way. -- Aliveness Cascade (talk) 08:42, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

An example of the unsatisfactory status quo from Eric Brady is:

• Brother: Brady Black (step)
• Sister: Sami Brady

... followed by half-brothers, and half-sisters. And it's weird! In this case, giving the stepbrother precedence, above Eric's biological full sister and twin Sami, is clearly wrong. And Brady Black really should appear in the list because Eric and Brady are constantly talked of as brothers on the show. That's why we need proper categories! Please support! Aliveness Cascade (talk) 16:49, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Classifications

Classification info can be presented better.

Spaces are better!

Currently we see forms like this:

• Present; regular
• Former, recurring

The semicolon and comma in both cases is superflous and are best removed. A space is just fine!! And it looks way cleaner with just a space!!

• Present regular
• Former recurring

Visiting's right

"Recurring" is being used in two entirely different ways. The correct way I contend is for a supporting character who appears on and off. The incorrect way is when a former regular character/actor returns for a temporary reprisal. This is clearly not the same thing, and we'd best not label it as such! Typically, when former stars of a show return for a temporary stint, they are in the thick of story, and appear as much as contract regulars. Plus to call such a reprisal "recurring" is nonsense, as they are clearly contracted to appear for the specific story they have been brought back in for. Such a character/actor visit would be properly described as "Visiting", and I propose that we use this term for characters currently visiting. It simplifies the situation too! A visiting character/actor may be on a lot, or they maybe on a little, and whilst it's happening we don't really know. We only know how much they're used until its over! "Visiting" covers everything perfectly!

Visiting time is over

When a visit by a former regular is over, the character's classification is best described as "Former regular". Presently we see "Present, recurring" for this situation - and that is misinformation! Let's please have rationality-based classifications! If a character was a former regular, that is *always* notable, and should appear in the infobox.

Presentation - putting it together

When a classification has two parts, such as "Returning" and "Former regular" the clearest way to display this is on two lines. I propose we do this going forwards. Like this:

• Returning
• Former regular

For a character/star currently visiting:

• Visiting
• Former regular

For a departing regular:

• Present regular
• Departing

Note, I am using bullets for clarity in this presentation. These would be unbulleted in infoboxes. - Aliveness Cascade (talk) 04:44, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

While I generally like this kind of detail and precision, our whole soap character classification system may be spilling into original research, as we are sort of inventing our own terms, and not citing in our lists the sources that assert terms like "recurring". There is a discussion on this at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Television#The_broader_problem_of_OR-based,_TV/film-related_labeling_using_reviewer_and_film-student_jargon which some of you may want to join. I'm defending the use of "series regular", "recurring", and "guest" because the trade publications use them, but the ongoing discussion has got me thinking how far we stray in some cases (not just soaps).— TAnthony^Talk 14:12, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

In this case, I believe your concern is misplaced. The soap media announce when actors are returning for temporary visits; just as they announce when actors go from "contract" to "recurring", and vice versa. This is certainly true for the US soap media, of which I am familiar. — Aliveness Cascade (talk) 05:10, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes but when you start defining "Former", "Present", "Visiting", "Departing", etc. you are inventing classifications that are not designated in the sources. I think we tend to be a little myopic in our practices in this project because we believe that soaps are so different than other TV shows so we justify a lot of stuff that wouldn't fly in a "regular" TV article. Our infobox is a prefect example of that LOL. We are technically a subproject of WikiProject television, and someday our standards will be held up against theirs, and it'll be ugly.— TAnthony^Talk 17:34, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Question on using em dashes

When it comes to displaying how a character is married in the infobox and the marriage is ongoing, would it be correct to use em dashes to say that the marriage was presently going on in the box? Like for example if someone got married to somebody today, would it be alright to put the year and an em dash next to the spouses name (ex: Sarah Horton (2019–)) in the infobox? Because if you just put the 2019 without the em dash, it looks like the marriage has ended. I'm asking this because someone who is acting like he owns the pages for US soap opera characters is insisting that the year of marriage be closed and not include an em dash. Arjoccolenty (talk) 19:49, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Per MOS:DATETOPRES, we're not supposed to use open-ended date spans like 2019–, we should be using 2019–present. But I know some editors have been touchy about this as well because 2019 is the present. I'm not sure where/if that is in the guidelines. I should also mention that it's actually an EN dash used for date ranges, not em (the n dash is shorter than the m).— TAnthony^Talk 20:45, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Oh OK. Just wnated to make sure. Thank you for telling me. Arjoccolenty (talk) 02:09, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Half-siblings included?

Just wanted to get a quick consensus and ask what the rule is for this before I go any further with trying to reason with someone so I know that I am correct and not arguing about a rule that doesn't get enforced anymore. Half-siblings, no matter HOW notable they are to each other are always added right? Every single time they are put up on the infobox regardless of whether or not they met? I thought that they did (looking at Eastenders its the only way Donna Ludlow could be on Ben Mitchell's page or Andrew Cotton being on Nick Cotton's page) but I have someone insisting that isn't the case. So could someone correct me if I'm wrong? Arjoccolenty (talk) 01:14, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Problem with infobox

{{Infobox soap character}} calls for open dates to be labeled as "YYYY–," however, per MOS:DATETOPRES, it states: Do not use incomplete-looking constructions such as 1982– and 1982–... . The infobox templates need to be updated in accordance to the manual of style. livelikemusic talk! 17:39, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Yeah I don't think it's controversial to update the template documentation to fall in line with the MOS. That bit was added in 2012 by an editor who I remember but has been inactive since 2013, and I'm not sure what the MOS said then. Anyway, I'm going to attempt a fix right now but please feel free to tweak what I do as necessary, you're a respected editor I think we can trust!— TAnthony^Talk 17:48, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

@TAnthony: I just didn't want to edit anything without bringing it up first; at one point, 2019– was acceptable, but the MoS changed within the last year or so, etc. And thank you for that compliment, it is greatly appreciated! livelikemusic talk! 18:01, 21 April 2020 (UTC)