Template talk:Infobox soap character/Archive 2
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Template:Infobox soap character. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Durations for spouses
I believe durations for spouses should not be used. This is for multiple reasons.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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)
- 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, 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)
- 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)
- (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)
- (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'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)
- 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'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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- (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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Get back to me when you've bothered to read the rest. AnemoneProjectors 23:24, 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- (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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- ...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)
- Oh, thank goodness! you take care as well!Cebr1979 (talk) 10:57, 24 March 2016 (UTC)