Template talk:Infobox soap character/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Species

FYI, I had originally designed this infobox without the species field, but I added it later when I realized that it is useful for characters like Siren (Passions character) and Precious (Passions character). However, these articles are very rare and in general the parameter shouldn't be used for most characters; no need to denote everyone as "human." — TAnthony^Talk 20:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Image sizing

How do we adjust the image's size (in case the image is smaller than 210px)? --Silvestris (talk) 12:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

We locked in the size to standardize images across articles; some editors tend to size them way to big. But I've suggested a workaround on your talk page. — TAnthony^Talk 16:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Not in use/Changing template

What's the point of this Template now, cos noone uses it, stuff like eg. "Coronation Street character" or "Emmerdale character", but i prefer this template, so i think it should be put back in use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dodgechris (talk • contribs) 01:30, July 28, 2008

Every American soap uses this template, so it is certainly in wide use. — TAnthony^Talk 15:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

But what of putting it back on the english soaps? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dodgechris (talk • contribs) 06:03, July 29, 2008

I believe the individual character templates you mention pre-date this one; I'm assuming they wanted the show name built in (and perhaps other specifics) but I created this template to be more customizable (you can add any show name, etc.) You can bring up the idea at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Coronation Street and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Emmerdale. — TAnthony^Talk 15:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

So, shall we change the Coronation Street character template back to this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dodgechris (talk • contribs) 12:19, August 6, 2008

Like I said above, you need to bring it up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Coronation Street before you make any such change. The Project may have a good reason why the current template works best for them. — TAnthony^Talk 03:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Merging already worked for two templates. Check: Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2008_May_11#Template:Brookside_Character and Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2008_May_18#Template:Hollyoaks_character. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that we, at least, must name the basic parameters the same in all soap opera infoboxes. Then check if there is reason to have the extra templates. For example: Actor's name must be under "name" in all templates. Since Coronation Street characters are fictional characters as well, we have to make the project cooperate. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

"Years" in infoboxes

It seems there is need to add Duration for characters who leave a show and reappear after some period. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Dates are usually written in next to the actor's name under "performers," since multiple actors are common (see Tina Lord). There are also and last appearance parameters ... what else are you envisioning? — TAnthony^Talk 17:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Copying from my talk page:

In 80%+ of the cases "years" (duration) in infoboxes is useless (and 100% unreferenced). Still, if you think it's important, we can add it to the generic {{Infobox soap character}}. That's the reason I am not removing from many of the infoboxes. I had that in mind. Friendly, Magioladitis (talk) 12:37, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it is important. For many soap characters, they do appear and disappear (Peter Barlow in Coronation Street is a perfect example) and it is important to show this in the infbox. Otherwise, it gives the impression in Barlow's case that he has appeared constantly since 1965. The infobox is the best and most concise way to put this info. If it could be put in the generic template that would be great. Kind Regards,--UpDown (talk) 12:40, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

-- Magioladitis (talk) 18:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm still confused, are you looking for like a calculated number of years the person has been on? I think that's getting a little trivial, spelling out the years should be enough. But you could always just enter templates like I did in List of longest-serving soap opera actors that do the math, I just think in general it's unnecessary. — TAnthony^Talk 18:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

First of all. I am good either way. Secondly, the Emmerdale wikiproject in its project used an entry called "years" in which it's noted in which years exactly a character appeared in the show. Right now I changed all transclusions to Infobox Emmerdale character 2 in Infobox soap character. Some editors believe that with this ways we are loosing the "years" entry. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh OK, I see what you mean now. It does seem unnecessary though; you have first and last appearances for a character and then individual performer dates, that clears up any issues about someone seeming to have appeared consistently for 20 years when they haven't. Plus, for current cast this number would have to be constantly updated annually for each person.— TAnthony^Talk 21:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

The US shows generally list all performers with dates in the character infobox, I'm not sure why you wouldn't so the same for a character like Peter Barlow (Coronation Street). The first thing I wondered when I looked at the article was, who were these other six actors who are mentioned? The infobox doesn't even tell me that Chris Gascoyne has only played him since 2000, even though he's the only actor listed. — TAnthony^Talk 21:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, please see my reasons given in my copied words above. Basically it is a quick, easy way to see when someone has actually appeared. Yes, if more than one actor has portrayed them, then the dates of the portrayal answer this, but what if one actor has portrayed them, but on and off - like Nick Cotton in EastEnders. Without the duration field - as exists on the EastEnders infobox - Cotton's article would be worse. It immediatley, easily, and concisely tells us when he has appeared. Otherwise, the infobox would suggest he has appeared constantly since 1985.--UpDown (talk) 08:02, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I completely see your point, I just think that the field is unnecessary because it would only be useful for characters who have been played by a single actor. I moved the duration info in Nick Cotton to illustrate what I think the solution should be; your "Introduced by" entries already include dates the same way so it fits right in. As in my example Tina Lord, this would be the only clear way to have dates for multiple performers anyway. What do you think? — TAnthony^Talk 15:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Your edit was quickly reverted I see - and to be honest I agree with the revert. Having a field for it is far simpler and clearer. I really can't see your objection to it. It applies to many people - so would be well used. I also think it looks messy next to the actors, the idea is to show when the character was on screen. A new field is the easiest way to have - what is the problem with including it. It does no harm.--UpDown (talk) 20:37, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

By all means, if someone wants to add it, fine ... but what are you going to do in the case of a character like Peter Barlow (Coronation Street)? Not mention the dates of the other performers at all? That would be a case of a template actually dictating the content of an article, and it should always be the other way around. Creating parameters that only apply to certain characters defeats the purpose of a standardized infobox in which everything looks the same and people know where to look to find certain information. You will have some characters with info there, and the others will presumably present the info in another way. It just seems like overkill, and the beauty of this template was always that it didn't have 100 parameters like the standard character box does. But as you say, there is no harm to put it in if you're insistent on using it, I will just resist its use for any series I'm involved with. — TAnthony^Talk 23:51, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

The parameter will be used for all characters, whether there was a break in their appearance or not - like the EastEnders character template currently does. The dates of the actors can also be put next to their names - or maybe in the main text in the correct section. I don't believe that clarifying when a character appeared in "overkill" at all. I would ask that someone install this, as I'm not 100% I'd get it right.--UpDown (talk) 07:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I've managed to add it using copy and paste from the EastEnders infobox.--UpDown (talk) 08:05, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying the clarification is overkill, I'm saying that adding a new parameter is; in any case, now that it's there, I'm curious how you're using it for multiple performers.— TAnthony^Talk 18:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Tfm nomination

{{editprotected}} Please add {{Tfm|Infobox soap character|Infobox soap character 2}} to the top of this template. This is for the current discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Template:Infobox soap character. Thanks! PC78 (talk) 22:07, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Done. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:10, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

{{edit protected}} Originally posted by myself at the Help Desk but told to come here - "Following this discussion via WP:SOAPS - changes need to be made to the Template:Infobox soap character. Following the discussion that was live for two weeks the outcome was that one colour should be used for the template. To make it more consistent the colour should now be matched to Template:Infobox soap character 2 - This template is protected, so could an Admin remove the option of the color field and ensure that the template uses only #cccfff - this will then match the second infobox."

Posted by user TEB728 - "The change that is needed in Template:Infobox soap character is {{{color|{{{colour|#c0c0c0}}}}}} → #cccfff four places. (For community discussion of the change see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Soap Operas#Universal Colour for US Soap Character Infoboxes.)Rain the 1 02:01, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done Skier Dude (talk) 05:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Is there anyway to make it over-ride existing pages using that template? Because that's a lot to possibly go through! _{MusicFreak7676} ^TALK! 17:44, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Requesting image size change

Quoted from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Soap Operas#Image sizes in Infobox soap character:

I am proposing a change in Template:Infobox soap character to reduce the mandatory image size in the infobox. I think 240px is excessive and as it is non free media, I think 200px is more appropriate. Plus it would then match the second infobox. Plus - IMO - It looks daft and stretches the infobox. Just no need.
— User:Raintheone

--George Ho (talk) 09:44, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done Tra (Talk) 15:07, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Another thing: why not changing sizes of image2, image3, and other images to 200px each? If 200px is too small, why not 210px or 220px? --George Ho (talk) 10:37, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done If by 'other images' you're referring to the one specified by |image= then that can't be changed here as the sizes are specified in the individual articles. Tra (Talk) 15:51, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Wait a minute, just because one editor wrote a proposal in one place, then another editor quoted that proposal here, why is the change immediately performed without a viable discussion? I do not think the change in image sizes look good at all because it is too small, nor do I understand why the change was made so quickly. The image sizes should all (as in image 1, 2 and 3) be reverted back to their original setting at 240px until a consensus is reached. The point here is that this is a community and just because 2 or 3 editors took part in this does not equal a consensus. Wait for more input before making such a drastic change. I vote no on the image sizes being changed to 200px and they should remain at 240px. Casanova88 (talk) 16:14, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with said user above, I vote no until a discussion is had and a complete consensus, not majority, is chosen. _{MusicFreak7676} ^TALK! 16:57, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I've reverted for now per above objections. Tra (Talk) 18:04, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposing a new parameter

I am proposing that we add another parameter for characters who have appeared on more then one soap opera (soaps that aren't spin-offs of the original). The series parameter seems to get a bit crowded for certain characters, most significantly Skye Chandler who has appeared on all three ABC soaps. The series parameter could just include the soap where the character originated and the "cross over" parameter could include the other soaps the character has appeared on with the duration.--Nk3play2 ^{my buzz} 03:56, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Proposed changes

After a lengthy discussion at WP:SOAPS, I am proposing these changes to the infobox, summarized below. A version of the complete proposed infobox can be found here in my sandbox.

The changes incorporate some aspects of Template:Infobox soap character 2, which has had success in use in UK soap character articles, many which have reached GA status. The discussion of major individual parameter changes can be found via this link.

1. "character" added to second bar. This further clarifies the subject as fictitious.
2. Removal of "Cause/reason". Currently used inconsistently and deemed unneeded.
3. Addition of "Introduced by" parameter directly following "Created by", which will be used to separately acknowledge Executive Producers and writers.
4. Addition of "Classification". To be used to clarify the character as present/former and contract/recurring/guest.
5. Removal of "Nickname." Not used in infobox2 and adds excessive clutter.
6. Addition of "Family". To be used to wikilink any existing pages of the major families the character belongs to.
7. Removal of "Gender". Overused field that adds clutter, not used in infobox2.
8. Removal of "Cause of death". Per WP:TENSE fictional characters live in a perpetual present state, calling out their death storyline is no more important than calling out other storylines. Not used in box2 and deemed unnecessary.
9. Removal of "Title". Overused field, not used by box2 that adds unnecessary clutter.
10. Addition of the following fields in their respective places: "adoptiveparents", "stepparents", adoptivechildren", "stepchildren". This will remove some of the cluttered qualifiers currently put in parenthesis after entries.
11. Change sibling(s) to sibling and spouse(s) to spouse.
12. Removal of "Romances". Excessive detail is added here that increases edit warring and reduces the stability of the articles. Essential information can be explained in the article.
13. Removal of "Other relatives". Excessive detail is added here that increases edit warring and reduces the stability of the articles. Essential information can be explained in the article.

Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 06:21, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

• Strong support. All of these changes are completely needed and will further improve the standard of these articles. It also includes less clutter. Arre 07:30, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
• Strong oppose I don't think "classification" was ever discussed, but I don't think it should be included. It's trivia, unneeded, and already said on The Cast members page. How does a nickname add clutter? It's a way that the character identifies themselves, and should be included. How does the family the character belongs to have to go in the info box? It seems a little excessive, like it could cause edit wars. I have already said how "character" adds nothing, and doesn't fit.Caringtype1 (talk) 17:29, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Classification is not trivia, it is related to the actor's current relation with the series, adding real world context. Family would contain itself to linked existing articles, avoiding clutter and edit wars. I'm not following how you oppose those two but support nicknames, this seems inconsistent and rather just opposed to change. Essiential nicknames are mentioned in the lead and/or commonname, the rest of the parameter is currently full of trivia, and unessential information, as you claim the other two would be, while classification/family have clear guidelines on what to include. These changes were assumed uncontroversial, especially with so many articles completely adapting to infobox 2 (which includes the changes in question), this proposal is an attempt to combine the two into a compromising solution. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 18:13, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

As for Classification, we would only put the current classification, correct? Because many recurring actors are later promoted to contract, and contract demoted to recurring, but we would only put we they are now? Like Monica Quartermaine, she was on contract for several years, but now she is only recurring. So her class-action would be recurring?Caringtype1 (talk) 18:46, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes I believe that to be correct, and previous contract statuses would be explained in the prose of the article. In all these parameter suggestions, we're really just trying to take some guidance from box2 that not only works well with those who use it but many of their articles are stable enough to reach GA status. That being said I know there is opposition to just switching over to box2, so I am hoping these changes can help keep box1 in use for US soaps but in better quality. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 18:57, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Then I guess I can get on board with most of these changes, but I really do feel that we shouldn't add "character". We don't have to keep saying that the article is about a character, especially if the first sentence says "... is a fictional character from the....", it's unnecessary! Also if you look at a page using box1, and a page using box2, the box1's second bar looks much cleaner, without a clunky added word.Caringtype1 (talk) 19:08, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I understand your viewpoint, and what swayed me was the fact that the word just further distinguishes the person as fictitious, especially when viewing infobox on its own as a brief summary of the article. Also the infobox template is controlled from a central place where as individual leads are not. I wouldn't want this one part to hold up the process, and would be willing to compromise and not include it, but I haven't heard any other opposition about including it. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 19:24, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support, yet oppose: While I support several of the changes, I still am apprehensive over the "romances" and the "created by/introduced by", but everyone else is just fine. Jester66 (talk) 20:50, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: Caringtype1, I'm not sure you know what trivia is, please see WP:Trivia before labeling something which is encyclopedic as trivia. 'Classification' is completely needed and a very good way to classify the character as past, present, regular, recurring. Additionally 'character' is fine and does not detract anything. It is completely necessary. Arre 01:33, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I believe all opposition has been addressed and/or consensus has been formed to make the above changes, in the above discussion and also at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Soap_Operas#Parameter_changes_to_infobox. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 19:22, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Any/all changes and corresponding code can be found here: User:Kelly_Marie_0812/Template:Infobox_soap_character for ease of updating. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 19:25, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I feel that the Romance field should stay, for the reasons I stated here, and I don't see why we need the Species field. Soap opera characters are usually human; the only time I can see the Species field being needed is if a non-human animal is a prominent character on the series. Flyer22 (talk) 02:12, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

What about the Spouse field? As for the Nickname field, well, that's sort of covered by the Alias field (I know that they aren't the same thing, but hey). Flyer22 (talk) 02:18, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I believe the conversation at wp:soaps reached rough consensus to remove romances. I would be fine with species being taken off. Spouse field is the same minus the (s). Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 02:33, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I just looked at that part of the discussion at WP:SOAPS, seeing what was stated since my comment. It's obvious how there can be stated to be rough consensus to remove the Romance field, but the majority view is currently only ahead by two and I don't see WP:Consensus (as in consensus based on more than just head count) to remove the field. I won't change my mind on my belief that it should stay, but I also won't throw a fit if it's removed (LOL). I see that the Spouse field is listed under Family in Template:Infobox soap character 2; I don't like that. A spouse is not necessarily family, especially ex-spouses. And I do feel that ex-spouses should be listed, with parenthetical clarification that they are exes, just like we've always done. So I would prefer the Family field stay titled Relationships. And of course we should exclude "Date of birth" and "Date of death," per WP:Consensus at WP:SOAPS. Flyer22 (talk) 02:43, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

My opinion of rough consensus is also taking into account the precursory discussion and comments here, as well as the fact that recently many users were completely switching to box2, which does not include romances. I also am taking into consideration the weight of the arguments versus head count; arguments towards removing "romances" suggest more stable articles and touch on policy points like trivia and the infobox guidelines on essential info, whereas arguments to keep it seem to just say they are important. I am obviously biased toward removing them, but in all honesty and as someone who previously asked to keep them, I just feel they are too hard to control. So much time is spent reverting edits like these. I think we need to focus on the fact that this is only the infobox, any removed info can be explained in the article. But I digress - I really just want to move forward at this point. As for family vs. relationships, I have to disagree that spouses are not family. Ex-spouses would still be listed, I don't think anyone has suggested that they not be. The section that briefly discussed this has leaned towards "family", with comments suggesting the inclusion of romances would be one deciding factor, and if they weren't included then family may be more appropriate. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 03:03, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that other Romance discussion. I don't have much more to state on the Romance field topic at this time, except the following: I don't feel that it is too hard to control. I don't see many WP:Fancruft additions of including things in that field that clearly aren't romances, but I also don't look at/edit soap opera articles as much as I once did (so maybe that's why I don't see that type of fancruft often). My argument for keeping the field was about more than just "It's important" and I feel that some of the others made good arguments for keeping the field; they are correct that soap opera is generally about romance. But the "It's important" argument is not a bad one. I don't feel that a field that is considered one of the more important ones among Wikipedia soap opera editors should be removed simply because it is perceived by some to be too hard to maintain. Yes, I of course know that there have been other arguments against the field than just that one. But I deal with articles that are too hard to maintain all the time; it doesn't mean that those articles should be removed. Like I stated, "The 'Romances' field is beneficial to readers and is not always covered by the 'Spouse' field."

As for spouses being family, I didn't state that they aren't. I stated that they are not necessarily family. Many soap opera characters are forced into marriages, marry people they don't like and/or hardly spend any time with, get a divorce soon after marriage; that's not family when the characters don't even consider the spouses family. And ex spouses specifically? That goes without saying; they are exes. Often, a character has no kids with an ex spouse and hasn't been close with an ex spouse for years. Not family, in my opinion. I also don't think most people think of "spouse" when they think of family. For example, people often ask others, "Are you married? Got any family?"

But anyway, those are the only views I have on those subjects at this time. Flyer22 (talk) 03:42, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

My comment on being hard to maintain is in regards to article stability. There are a lot of opinions, reverting, etc with this field in my experience editing soap articles. Inclusion where notable in the article, in my opinion, is sufficient. I disagree that a line needs to be drawn between family and exes. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 04:06, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Proposed changes: round 1

{{editprotected}} As this proposal includes many aspects and there have been many conversations different places, I am amending the proposal to first change the parameters with no opposition and/or unanimous consensus.

1. Removal of "Cause/reason". Currently used inconsistently and deemed unneeded. Unanimous consensus here
2. Removal of "Nickname." Not used in infobox2 and adds excessive clutter. No opposition.
3. Removal of "Gender". Overused field that adds clutter, not used in infobox2. No opposition.
4. Removal of "Cause of death". Per WP:TENSE fictional characters live in a perpetual present state, calling out their death storyline is no more important than calling out other storylines. Not used in box2 and deemed unnecessary. Unanimous consensus here.
5. Removal of "Title". Overused field, not used by box2 that adds unnecessary clutter. No opposition.
6. Change sibling(s) to sibling and spouse(s) to spouse.
7. Removal of "Other relatives". Excessive detail is added here that increases edit warring and reduces the stability of the articles. Essential information can be explained in the article. No opposition/briefly mentioned here.

Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 04:24, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Done. Nyttend (talk) 12:51, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Question: Why is "sibling" now singular, when the others (other than spouse, since you're only supposed to have one at a time) are still plural. It's obviously possible to have more than one. –anemoneprojectors– 12:15, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry that was a typo on my part I meant to write "change sibling(s) to siblings". Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 12:53, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh dear. As an admin, I can fix it! –anemoneprojectors– 16:29, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Awesome, thank you!! Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 00:55, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Remaining proposed changes

Hi everyone - here are the remaining proposed changes, I believe most have reached some sort of consensus but please discuss if anyone thinks something hasn't reached consensus to change.

Due to the code complexity of the requested changes, the full infobox with changes is saved in the template sandbox here. This includes non-breaking spaces between all parameters with more than one word, and updated subheader code that won't show if there isn't any information underneath it. The rest of the changes that are content based are described below (but also included in the linked sandbox).

• Removal of "Romances". Request for closure here at this discussion stated consensus to remove.

• Addition of "Introduced by" directly below "Created by". Explanation and what I believe is consensus to add here at this discussion.

• Addition of "Classification" directly below "spin off appearances" and before the start of the "Profile" header.. There hasn't been a specific discussion but I've only seen one comment in opposition so far.

• Addition of "Family" directly above "Parents", as the first parameter in "Family" section. This would be for wikilinked entries to existing family articles. Again no specific discussion but haven't seen much opposition.

• Addition of "adoptiveparents" and "stepparents" directly following the "parents" parameter. I believe there is rough consensus here at this discussion.

• Addition of adoptivechildren" and "stepchildren" directly following the "children" parameter, rationale same as above.

• Addition of "character" to the series name parameter. Only seen one editor in opposition.

• Change "Relationships" heading to "Family". Rough consenses here at this discussion.

Thanks! Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 01:50, 13 December 2012 (UTC) Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 02:01, 15 December 2012 (UTC) Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 07:38, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Done! Glad you did the sandbox thing! –anemoneprojectors– 08:56, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

TfM

please apply this notice:

{{Tfm/dated|page=Infobox soap character|otherpage=Infobox soap character 2|link=Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 August 27#Template:Infobox soap character 2|help=off|type=sidebar}}

ASAP. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:13, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Done --Redrose64 (talk) 16:56, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:58, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Two questions

1. Why did the two infoboxes merge?
2. Why shouldn't birth and death be on there?
Boushenheiser (talk) 22:29, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

@Boushenheiser:

1. see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 August 27#Template:Infobox soap character 2
2. see #Date of Births/Deaths and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Archive 11#Age fields in fictional character infoboxes.

–anemoneprojectors– 23:02, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Error

I've noticed an error in the 'family' section. The first 's' in 'sisters' is in lowercase, it should be in uppercase. Boushenheiser (talk) 11:05, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. –anemoneprojectors– 13:58, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Merge

TFD closed as merge with {{Infobox soap character 2}}. Obviously the two templates have different parameters so for now we need to include them all - which is why I made Template:Infobox soap character 2/sandbox. Is everyone ok for this to be implemented now? We can then discuss any changes after. –anemoneprojectors– 22:53, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and merged the two templates but actually used the basic layout from this page (starting {| class="infobox"), rather than the other template (which used {{infobox}}). If anyone sees anything that's broken, let me know. –anemoneprojectors– 09:44, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

The documentation will need to be updated. –anemoneprojectors– 09:51, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Just to say that when I merged the two templates, I didn't include the dates of birth and death that infobox 2 had. I did this because of prior consensus at this template and WikiProject Television. Thought I should mention that. –anemoneprojectors– 14:30, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

The way it was discussed, I assumed the discussion would be opened once again due to the merge. I didn't realize the merge wouldn't include dates of births/deaths.--Nk3play2 ^{my buzz} 20:33, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

The sandbox is far too detailed. Infoboxes should include an over-view of information. That's why Infobox1 is better with just "Parents", "Siblings", "Marriages", etc. The details can be included within the article if readers would like further explanation. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 21:48, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

The merge was a complete merge - the only reason I left out birth and death dates is because of previous consensus on this template and at the Wikiproject. The sandbox is detailed because it is a complete merge of two templates, which has now been carried out. This was done because of consensus at the TFD. –anemoneprojectors– 23:00, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Regarding family members - nobody is being forced to use three fields for the same people, e.g. parents, mother and father, all at the same time. Before the merge, Template:Infobox soap character 2 separated family by sex whereas this template did not. Therefore all options need to be retained so that hundreds of pages don't lose the information in the infoboxes. For some fields to be removed requires a HELL of a lot of editing, and I'm not willing to do that. So I think it's best for everyone to keep both options. –anemoneprojectors– 23:07, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

That's a good solution for family members for now, but hopefully the gender specific parameters can eventually be phased out.Caringtype1 (talk) 19:55, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

The merge has made the infobox extensively excessive. And I don't agree with that, but I don't feel like debating it. This merge proposal should have been noted at the talk page of WP:SOAPS so that more editors would have known to weigh in on it. This discussion kept popping up on my WP:Watchlist, and I didn't look in on it. Now that I have, I am obviously displeased to know that the merge consists of all those fields. As noted by livelikemusic above, this template was better before the merge. Not to mention, that it'd been extensively worked out not that long ago. Flyer22 (talk) 16:25, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

The merge was a (near) complete merge, so because the two templates used different fields, they all had to be added. This doesn't change the articles that were using either template - you are not being asked to use every field in every article. So I don't understand your complaint. The only pages that were affected were ones that used the old infobox 2. The ones that already used this one have not changed in any way whatsoever. –anemoneprojectors– 08:23, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Image2 and Image3

Since the merge, pages that used infobox2 and had image2 or image3 no longer display correctly, so require editing to fix it. However, 240px is too large, it doesn't match the image at the top, and especially in the case of Lou Beale, the image is stretched to larger than actual size. Any ideas? –anemoneprojectors– 13:58, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Obviously we can edit pages using image2 pages so that image becomes image1 and therefore the same size as image2, but not being able to change the image's size, even by 1px, can cause problems sometimes when a new image is uploaded to replace the old one and some bizarre error that's been around for years but nobody has figured out how/bothered to fix means that the old picture is still displayed but all stretchy. I did it for Peggy Mitchell but I don't really want to continue. –anemoneprojectors– 12:11, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh I could implement an imagesize (and image1size, image2size, image3size) field, defaulting to what it currently is, but with the option to change it.... Any comments on that? –anemoneprojectors– 12:19, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I've done what I suggested, so I hope nobody objects. It's kind of necessary right now. –anemoneprojectors– 16:03, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

If you change the code to "Image1", "Image2" and "Image3" before it was automatically scaled to 240px, which was already determined as an appropriate size for character images at WP:SOAPS between editors after the size was changed without notice. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 00:57, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

It's not an appropriate size for all images. 240px works well for landscape-orientated images, but not for portrait ones, where 200px is more appropriate. Also it doesn't work for images that aren't 240px wide anyway - some are only about 160px so would be stretched and therefore would look pixellated (example: File:Emma cooke as pat harris.JPG is only 167px). It hasn't changed the look of any of the articles that used this infobox originally, so again I don't know why you're objecting. –anemoneprojectors– 08:42, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Why are you acting so defensive? I don't appreciate the attitude I feel I'm getting from you by simply stating something that was already previously decided at WP:SOAPS by users using the infoboxes. And I never objected. I never once said "I object". I was simply stating something that may or may not fix the issue. Instead, I'm getting shot an attitude as if I'm some stupid person. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 14:51, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, it came across to me as an objection. To be honest I was a little confused because your first reply didn't seem to be a complete sentence. I was just saying that 240px is not appropriate for all images (File:Emma cooke as pat harris.JPG is only 167px wide), and there's no harm in giving the option in articles where the images were already 200px or smaller. In fact, I have been forced to add imagealt to this template because image1 didn't allow an alt description to be added to an image, even though it's necessary for articles to reach FA status, so the image(0) field hasn't worked properly for some time. As for being defensive, I'm only defending the articles that used infobox2. Tone doesn't come across well in writing so I'm sorry that you think I have an attitude. Additionally, consensus can change, and consensus was to merge the two templates - that should include merging image sizes. I wanted as little disruption to the look of articles as possible, so that means using image size options. Also I was possibly the only person who was willing to actually perform the merge, and I didn't want complaints from either side (i.e. editors of articles using either template originally). Articles that used this template before the merge haven't changed, so in my mind there shouldn't be any from the editors of those articles. –anemoneprojectors– 15:25, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

By the way, I've just checked the image size discussion over at WP:SOAPS' archives. It took place in March 2012, and the discussion apparently ended without reaching a consensus. –anemoneprojectors– 15:34, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Alternative images

Infobox soap character 2 had a bar above image2 and image3 with "Alternative image(s)" written on it, to separate the pictures from the profile. I didn't spot this until now - the infoboxes look strange without it now. May I bring it back? –anemoneprojectors– 16:14, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I do not think it is needed at all. Completely unnecessary, and it workS better without itCaringtype1 (talk) 16:48, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Please, bring it back it make it more professional and readers might not know what it means if the buch of random pictures at the bottom. Trust me, there is readers that are not as smart as we are. Also, as noted above the infoboxes look strange without it now. Furthermore, @AnemoneProjectors: I do not see the reason why you brought it up, no one had an issue with it before, so this no need of a disscussion. But that JMO.  — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 19:37, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. It's a random, extra bar that has no purpose, and makes the box look more disjointed and confusing. Readers might not be smart, but they definitely do not need to be told they are looking at an image.Caringtype1 (talk) 21:48, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

You might be right. But this issue does not need concern because with the bar or without it I do not why people would care and It is sad that you do. I believe that it should be there but in then end I dont give a damn about it. Therefore, do whatever you want. But @AnemoneProjectors:, I still would like a response for my question. Feel free to ping me.  — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 22:40, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I think it is not needed. It's a senseless headline. The images there are obviously to state alternate notable actors/actresses in the roles for those recast. It's too cluttering. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 00:55, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

@Livelikemusic: How is it cluttering? It was used in the old infobox2, and was not cluttering. It was sensible. Not that many articles even have a secondary image. In some articles it looks like the images are in the occupations list. Having a small blue bar makes it look neater. It just looks wrong now, listed under "profile". They're not a part of the character's profile, they are images. –anemoneprojectors– 08:37, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

@AnemoneProjectors: I just see it as another non-needed piece for the infobox. Infobox is supposed to have an over-all scale of information. And Infobox2 defeated that purpose with its extra headlines and unneeded bars. That's just my opinion to things. No need to get offensive or defensive about it. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 14:49, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Infobox2 had one bar (or headline if you choose to call it that) that this template didn't have. It doesn't take away any information, and in my opinion it doesn't cause any clutter, but makes it neater. I don't know what I've said to offend you but if I've been offensive I'm sorry. I don't want to get off topic but I don't see a problem with defending my opinion either. –anemoneprojectors– 15:14, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

@SoapFan12: I can't see a question in your comments - are you asking me why I brought this up? If you "don't give a damn about it", why even comment? –anemoneprojectors– 08:37, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

@AnemoneProjectors: Never mind since I see you have no interest on answering my question.  — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 09:56, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

@SoapFan12: You didn't ask a question. If you ask me a question, I'll answer it. –anemoneprojectors– 10:27, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Livelikemusic, there absolutely is no need for the extra bar. The box shouldn't be chopped up into many different sections, when it doesn't have to be.Caringtype1 (talk) 22:01, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Obviously I had to ask because the other infobox had it, and it was merged here. I guess that the articles without the bar were fine before the merge, so the ones that had the bar will be fine too. It's not really that important (in fact I'm getting used to the change already), but as I said, I had to ask. –anemoneprojectors– 12:53, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I actually think the bar is basic house keeping. It was included for consistency. The first image is boxed off. No harm in the second one being boxed off. It makes perfect sense to me.Rain the 1 23:47, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I do agree with you actually Rain. Just because I'm getting used to something not being there doesn't mean I wouldn't like to see it back. Some people just don't like change I think. It could always be made optional, only used in the articles that used infobox2. As I said, I wanted as little disruption to the look of pages as possible. –anemoneprojectors– 09:35, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Home/residence

I think these fields should be removed. Where a character lives is in-universe information, non-defining, devoid of context or meaning to anyone but fans, and generally difficult to reference, and the infobox should contain as little in-universe information as possible. Characters in soaps have a tendency to move around a lot, but this is usually used purely to state where a character is located in the lastest episode that was broadcast, or where they are said to have moved to if they left the show. For example, Ken Barlow's location says he lives in Canada, but he doesn't live in Canada in any of the episodes he has appeared in because Coronation Street is not set in Canada. Fatboy has lived in at least six locations during his time in EastEnders. When Lucas Johnson was taken into police custody, his home was immediately changed to "police custody", which is ridiculous. The infobox should summarise a character's entire time in a programme, so if it was to include characters' homes, it should list every place they've lived in - thus cluttering up the infobox considerably. EastEnders articles already have "home" removed from the infobox since June 2011 following a discussion for all these same reasons. Important moves should be mentioned in the prose. –anemoneprojectors– 16:28, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I believe this parameter came into being when {{Infobox EastEnders character}} was merged into/replaced with this infobox, as I believe addresses/homes were, at that time, considered important because of the neighborhood focus of the series. If consensus has nullified that, then I totally agree that the parameter should go, it does encourage in-universe nonsense.— TAnthony^Talk 17:59, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

{{Infobox EastEnders character}} hasn't been in use since 2010, when it was merged to {{infobox soap character 2}} with various other UK and Australian soap character infoboxes that all used "home" as well. But no, this template did use "residence" before {{infobox soap character 2}} was merged here - that template used "home" so "home" was added in the merge. Some U.S. soap characters do use this - I just found Liza Colby as an example. But glad you agree. –anemoneprojectors– 01:11, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Ha! I created this template in 2007 by customizing {{Infobox character}} to our needs and adding the collapsible "Relationships" section, and I was SURE I never would have kept a "Residence" parameter in there ... but I just checked and looks like I did ;) The EastEnders discussion I'm thinking of must have been at some point when removing the parameter was discussed. Anyway, yes, I agree it's unnecessary! — TAnthony^Talk 01:29, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Yay! Does anyone else agree? –anemoneprojectors– 13:44, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I personally am not a fan of this field, especially since it could go in ways of being fancruft. So if it's taken out, I would not be upset in the least. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 19:24, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you, it's impossible to keep it factual as people move around etc. Although, whilst we are here - I'd really like to take the time to wonder how I could go about setting up another debate about the removal of DOB/DOD's from these infoboxes. I know people stated that they were "trivia" but I think their removal really was a big mistake. Alex250P (talk)

I think it should be removed. I do not think it is essential in the infobox. It is in-universe. It is the type of thing you would expect to see on a factfile card or featured on the soap opera official website character bios section. I say remove it. Plus there is nothing more annoying lately than having to monitor it - half of the characters swap homes every other week.. tedious.Rain the 1 23:44, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Date of Births/Deaths

I noticed the template was changed, and the places to put death dates and birthdates were removed. I'd really like to know why. But, if they were removed because people constanly changed it, I understand. I think something else could be done instead of removing it altogether. --Nk3play2 ^{my buzz} 02:16, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

With you on this one, dude. Some idiots thought that it was "trivia". I think age is important especially in many cases. I want it put back. Infobox is for info. DOB is info, --Leslie Roak (talk) 16:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

As noted in the edit summary, consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#Age fields in fictional character infoboxes has started this movement in all fictional character infoboxes (and many have had age-related parameters removed awhile ago). Give me article examples and I can help you find ways to add this information in a logical and non-trivial way to the article text. There have been many discussions about this, and in most cases the "ages" are a result of original research using often conflicting information. Thanks.— TAnthony^Talk 18:12, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The above-referenced discussion at WP:TV has been archived to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Archive 11#Age fields in fictional character infoboxes.— TAnthony^Talk 22:00, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

There are many cases that the day of birth of a character has changed to refelect actor's age. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

This has annoyed me as well. Date of birth should be included. Just because there is contradictory info sometimes (perhaps because the producers don't know themselves!) doesn't mean it should be blanket removed. What bunch of idiots came up with that?! So what if people are changing it, people change things all the time. How do you view the age if the field has been removed? Because presumably, the information, is or was still there. Is the only way to search through previous archived versions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.25.68.87 (talk) 22:06, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

An infobox is intended as a quick summary of notable information about an article's topic, and consensus has determined in general terms the birth dates and ages of fictional characters should not be included in infoboxes. If sourced birthdate information for a particular is found to be notable, it can be incorporated into the article text as appropriate. Also please do not use inflammatory language (calling editors "idiots") on talk pages or in edit summaries. Thanks. — TAnthony^Talk 18:06, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for reply. And your point is taken, however I only said idiots as another person used the same word a few lines above. Please could you direct me to the discussion where the consensus was reached that DOB should not be included. Surely something should not be removed unless it is detrimental somehow to have it there. I fail to see how including it could be detrimental. You can just click the (+) sign to see more so it doesn't have to be visible otherwise so that negates the clutter argument as far as I can see. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.25.68.87 (talk) 03:43, 4 January 2015 (UTC)