Template talk:Infobox character

Cleaning house

It's time for some more cleaning house and going through this template to find out what is truly "essential to understanding the character", per WP:WAF. Currently, this is where the infobox stands:

{{Infobox character
| colour      = #DEDEE2
| colour text = 
| name        = 
| series      = 
| image       = 
| caption     = 
| first       = 
| last        = 
| cause       = 
| creator     = 
| portrayer   = 
| nickname    = 
| alias       = 
| species     = 
| gender      = 
| occupation  = 
| title       = 
| family      = 
| spouse      = 
| significantother = 
| children    = 
| relatives   = 
| religion    = 
| nationality = 
}}

I think what we need to do is go through each category one by one and figure out if it's necessary, what type of article it is necessary for (i.e., not all types of characters would require us to know what their national origin to understand the character, yet I'm sure almost every character has some national origin listed somewhere is some form of in-universe media. This reason I am bringing this up again is because we're still having some issues with editors disagreeing over what should be included and I think we need to relook at this template and see what needs to stay and see about clarifying when certain sections should be used and when they shouldn't. "Essential to understanding the character" can be vague and I think we need some specific examples for controversial categories so that we can say "this article fits best with this example and thus should/shouldn't be using these in-universe sections".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:05, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Count me in on the discussion. CTJF83 pride 16:42, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

So are you saying that the "relationships" and "enemies" in the infobox for these articles (Jigsaw Killer, Amanda Young, Jill Tuck, Eric Matthews) should be removed? Mike Allen 22:14, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

"Cause of Death", "Status", "Enemies", "Relationships"....they are kind of unnecessary. This template specifically removed "Cause of Death" and "Status" awhile ago. Those pages contain customizable infoboxes, not the standard one you see here. How is knowing a list of people that are considered the "enemy" of Eric Matthews helping me to understand Eric Matthews?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:35, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Looking at it i think spouse, children, relatives, family and significantother could all be wrapped up in a relationships filed.

gender is generally not needed as most times an image will acompany the person and be able to show in a vast majority of the cases what gender the character is. The relative few exceptions can be explained in prose or use special templates.

cause - can be removed and explained in prose.

portrayer and voice could be merged as in most cases the person portraying them (live action) also voices them. The only ones of concern are foreign live-action films dubbed into English.

nickname and alias could be merged. While there is sometimes a difference, it doesn't matter in most cases. I can only think of one instance where it would be a problem and that character doesn't have his own page(s).

title could be removed and instructions ammended to add a title to name陣内_Jinnai 22:40, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the number of relative/family/spouse/children fields seems excessive. We should keep separate portrayer and voice fields. The nickname and alias fields seem redundant in most cases. We should keep the title field, since it would otherwise make the top line too long in many cases. Cause does seem unnecessary. Two that I have seen quite a bit but don't have fields are "affiliations" and "powers/abilities". I can see reasons for not having those, but I thought I would mention it. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:48, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank god I'm not the only one that feels this way. I'm about decided (actually I've been thinking about it for a while) to do some house cleaning on those article infoboxes. I think that's about to become a reality. A lot of it is original research too. Mike Allen 23:16, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

"Affilitions" could be added to other_relations type field. powers/abilities is cruft generally and should not be encouraged. If they are relevant they will be talked about in the prose.陣内_Jinnai 00:33, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

How about adding a tracking category to see which transclusions are using a large number of free "lbl" and "data" fields? Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:50, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I think if powers/abilities are considered cruft (and I'm not saying I'm against that idea), then you have to look at relationships the same way. Does the fact that Homer is married to Marge mean anything for his character? Nothing important that isn't stated in prose somewhere I'm sure. I cannot think of any character that truly benefits from a relationship field. To me, those fields basically treat the character like they are real, by insinuating that they are somehow taking part in real relationships with other characters. Lately, I've been thinking that character infoboxes should be as OOU as possible, otherwise they're just treating the fiction like non-fiction.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:59, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

There are uses when there is a large cast selection and with articles (not lists) dealing with multiple characters. There was some discussion on a related template Template talk:Infobox animanga character#Affiliations which gives a good explanation for when it is relevant and when it isn't so much. Similar principles can apply here. In the end, it was removed and relagated to auxilary because it only pertained to a specific kind of series.陣内_Jinnai 01:31, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

If there are articles for characters, then there is typically a nav box at the bottom of the page that lists all of the characters. How does knowing who someone's brother is ir wife/husband provide some deeper insight into a character? It doesn't. Unless you already know who the characters are, the only way to know is to either visit the other character's page or read the in-universe stuff on the current page for context. Either way, a simple name doesn't actually hold any meaning. In addition, for example, Homer is not really married to Marge. They're not real, so they cannot be married. Applying some importance to that fact is not what the page should be doing. I think the problem this template got into was treating it like it was a BLP infobox, where you would include spouses, nationalities, etc.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:58, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Even though they are characters, they are still married. Yes, it is in-universe info, but that doesn't make it any less real that the creators made a fictitious world where Homer is married to Marge. That can be verified. Whether it needs to be in an infobox, well that's more debatable.陣内_Jinnai 02:23, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

They are not real, which means they cannot die, they were never born, and they don't get married. It's a story element, it's not real. The problem comes when it's presented in such a manner as to insinuate that the character is real. This is why we removed birthdates and deathdates from the infobox awhile ago. You can say a character was killed off in episode X, film Y, or novel Z...but they don't actually have a "date of death".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:23, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not comfortable removing all relatives. I think they are important to understanding. They could all be merged into one section. I think the problem comes when people add every relative ever mentioned, third cousin twice removed, who appeared in one episode for 30 seconds, doesn't need to be added. CTJF83 pride 04:48, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with all other removals. I see no mention of religion, but i don't see how that is important at all to understanding a character. CTJF83 pride 04:50, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The first part is a matter of opinion and one that is not shared by everyone. While its true they are fictional, when I read Tom Sawyer I can say those characters have specific characteristics and relations to other fictional characters which could include a fictional marrigage. I agree they are fictional, but that doesn't make the words, images, audio or video describing them any less real. Furthermore, the characters aren't always fictional. There is a class of fiction which uses real people as characters.

And yes, there is no need for every possible relationship. That is true for fictional characters as it is real-life people.

As for religion, well that can be of importance for certain works like Journey to the West which deal with different religions, specifically Buddhism and Taoism.陣内_Jinnai 04:57, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

What character has a relationship that is essential to understanding that character? This is about the template being in compliance with WP:WAF, which says that it must be "essential". Not merely add something, but "essential". In other words, the removal of said information would be detrimental to understanding the character. So what relationship is so essential that if we were to remove it's mentioning in the infobox it would damage the readers' understanding of the character?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:14, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I can't answer that, it just seems important to me, I guess not essential. CTJF83 pride 05:18, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

That's kind of the point. It isn't essential to understand the character. It may be an important fact (and I use "important" lightly, because if their relationship with another fictional character is the only real important thing about them...well...), but not essential to understanding them at a glance. The infobox is meant for quick, glancing info to let you know about the character. You cannot describe the intricacies of a relationship by a mere mentioning of a name, and thus receive no context for it and it just becomes a needless piece of in-universe information.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 06:12, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Almost everything there is not "essential". Beyond the name and the series/title everything else is not essential. How, for example, would not knowing the (voice) actor cause a determinetal effect. Beyond the three right above mentioned above everything is not essential. Even the creator. How would not knowing at a glance who created the character cause such problems that it would make the understanding of that character that it would damage the readers' understanding of that character?陣内_Jinnai 16:59, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Knowing the voice actor is not in-universe information. It's real world information. The concept of "essential" is only applied to in-universe information. That's why it's at WP:WAF and not a general MOS for infoboxes.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:42, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, like WP:WAF-INFO says, a lot of this varies depending upon the title/series. FE: knowing that Harley Quinn is affiliated with a specific group of gives knowledge of how she is used in the genre that may not be clear. If she wasn't in the Secret Society of Super Villains then you could read the entire article and not realize she was a villian, let alone a super villian (which is distinct from the latter). In addition, that she has an alter-ego is also vital info because it may affect the reader as they read the article and in certain sections see references to Dr. Harleen Quinzel and not realize they are one-in-the-same. It also is important because it shows that there is a version of her that is not the super villian and does not associate with it. Now are either of those important for every character? No. That is where the wording of WAF-INFO comes in What qualifies as essential varies based on the nature of the work. Where facts change at different points in a story or series, there may be no appropriate in-universe information at all to add. By contrast, an infobox on a character in a fantasy work with multiple warring factions may warrant data such as allegiance.

The reason I said powers/abilities should not be included is because those are among the most often added with trivial usage. A one-time power would likely be seen as okay to add because there is a field in the infobox. They are already added to articles so they'd naturally add them to infoboxes by extension. Very rarely is knowing someone's powers so essential that not knowing it would cause serious damage to the understanding of the character. There are exceptions, but those exceptions can be handled with custom fields.陣内_Jinnai 19:06, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

How could you not realize she is a villain? It should be stated right there in the lead paragraphs. It's kind of a relevant qualifier for the character. Again the same for the alias. Unless they just read some random paragraph, any decent editor will have introduced the concept that she was once a psychiatrist that turned evil. Vary rarely are someone's personal relationships so essential that not knowing about them in the infobox would damage a reader's understanding. Relationships require context, something that powers do not require (e.g., everyone understands what super strength is), and an infobox cannot provide that context. As such, things like relationships could not be considered essential to understanding a character because they don't provide any information that would even add any new understanding, minimal or otherwise. It's just a name of another character. It doesn't tell you anything about the one you're reading about. You might as well say their favorite color is blue, because at least then you'd have some type of personal interest. A character name has no value without proper context, and the infobox cannot provide that.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:45, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

That positition does not have consensus as it specifically gives an example on WAF-INFO. That we have too many is probably a good argument. That they are completely unneeded is not. Powers can also be described in text as well. Super strength isn't completely obvious to everyone. It could mean the apitamity of human strength, just beyond the apitimany, or way beyond it. You can't know without reading in just the same way.陣内_Jinnai 21:23, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

The average reader knows that strength means and knows what the qualifier super means. To suggest otherwise would just be silly. But I agree...know their powers are not essential to understanding the character itself. Regardless, you still have not provided an argument for how a particular relationship could ever be essential to understanding a character. As of right now, I haven't seen any actual argument for that, let alone exceptions to that argument where it could be relevant for one type and not the rest. The reason being, as I have said multiple times, the importance of a relationship to a characters storyline cannot be created by the mere mentioning of a name in an infobox. The relationship has no informational value as surface level. You need prose to describe why the relationship is important in the fictional universe, and a name doesn't do that. I don't learn anything important about the character from a mere name. It doesn't tell me if their are good, bad, ugly, strong, weak, intelligence, etc. It tells me nothing more than they are related to another fictional character in some way. WAF also says, "there may be no appropriate in-universe information at all to add." For a lot of characters, I think this is very true but we feel the need to fill out everything that appears in the infobox because it's an option to do so. I think we have too many options that are rarely, if ever, going to be appropriate for fictional characters and when the time comes that they are truly appropriate then it's probably better to have a customizable option in the template than some standard section.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:41, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

No its not silly. Yes, in very general terms, super and stength are obvious, but not the difference between Superman and Spiderman, both of whom have super strength.

And I did put forth a valid argument for why it would be relevant and the fact you blatantly ignored it but then used an example with even weaker tenant, powers, shows a bias. Furthermore, this is aradical change if you were to removal all in-unvierse items like that and I can clearly say you would not have consensus for doing so with the four or so people here as that is a major departure.陣内_Jinnai 22:50, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not actually proposing the removal of all in-universe information, just categories that will generally never fit the criteria for "essential" and have them be regulated to the "optional" category where consensus can be determined on an individual basis. Relationships is one of those categories. By "optional", I mean creating an auxillary category that would allow an editor to fill out the category name and then fill out the contents (e.g., "Aux24=Notable relationships, List2=Aunt Polly, Mammy Jo, etc.). You haven't actually proposed an argument for why there needs to be a section devoted to such a category. You've talked about how relationships are important to some types of charactesr--which I never disagreed with--but that has not bearing on inclusion in the infobox. You tried to claim that large casts lists somehow make it relevant, but large casts tend to get included in the nav boxes at the bottom of the page. You also pointed to a discussion saying it provides a good explaination for why we should have them, when it fact it didn't. It was talking about Anime affiliations/character classes, which is not the same thing. You provided an example of Tom Sawyer, but knowing he is related to Aunt Polly doesn't help me understand Tom. The name provides no contexts as to why she is relevant to the character, and thus essential to understanding him. You should not have to read the entire article (or either Aunt Polly or Tom Sawyer) to know why that relationship is important. It should just be obvious. That's not possible without context. Any information in the infobox should stand by itself and not require explanation later. The explanation later should be in addition to. Where is the necessity for having a "Relationship" type of category when most character won't need it, as any relationship will be almost impossible to understand without context.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:06, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay. I think we were talking past each other. I was never saying we needed affiliations. I was just saying, comparatively to powers/abilities, its more useful. I did not that to be a ringing endorsement. I do think having relations can be useful. Easiest example would be indentical or near-indentical twins. As for affiliations, I would have to say I'm neutral.陣内_Jinnai 23:36, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Identical twins? Again how does that lead to understanding the character? Seeing a name does not tell me he is an identical twin. It just means he has a "brother/sister". A name does not exude physical appearance, thuse prose context would be necessary in order to understand that he has an identical twin.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:42, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually it does. If I said two people who look the same in 2 different articles, except their names or better yet, in the same article (for cases of multi-character articles), seeing a name with an image with a relation "twin bother/sister" does give you that context and also clarrifies (or confirms) to the reader at a glance these 2 indivisuals aren't just related, aren't just siblings, but identical twins. It makes it so they don't assume they are older/younger siblings, father/son or mother/daughter, (insert other familial relations here), 2 friends who look similar, etc and does so with just the name and that relation.陣内_Jinnai 03:47, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea what you just said. A simple name in relations does not do add understanding to a character. It may clarify that they aren't Character Y, but it doesn't provide understanding of the character in question. You're confusing a clarification of relationships with information that provides some important information about the character that is directly related to that character. The fact that they look like another character wouldn't be important unless it was notable that this mistaken identity was common for them. Your example seems far-fetched and again contains the issue of a lack of context. You cannot put the prose necessary to clarify such a relationship in the infobox. That isn't what it is designed for. Even if you put "Bob Jones (twin brother)", that doesn't tell me anything about John Jones except that he has a twin brother. I don't understand him anymore than I did before. The only way I would understand more is if I read about Bob Jones, thus defeating the purpose of the infobox inclusion because I shouldn't have to be redirected outside of the article I'm reading just to understand a relationship that is apparently important enough to be mentioned in the infobox.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:33, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Break

Gone for a while.

You miss the whole concept of what an infobox is suppose to be. Never will an infobox give detailed info on anything; that is not its purpose. It's purpose is to give brief highlights of important and relevant info to summarize the article therefore any point about "but you have to read more to get the context" is moot because that is beyond their scope. Yes, they do rely somewhat on common sense to know that if a character is a cat species you can understand some basic info on that character just as when we list their full name we assume people have enough common sense to realize that the character may be refered to by just part of their name. Yes, fictional info can get out of hand and bloat an infobox, but lack of such info harms the function as a summarization of the material just as much as the lack of any info.陣内_Jinnai 04:16, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Again, it must be essential to understanding the character and listing family members isn't essential unless you understand who they are. You cannot do that with a simple name for most characters. This is why we should have an auxillary section where, when truly appropriate, it can be customly added to the infobox. Leaving it as a standard section creates the problem of having people fill it out because it exists...which is a problem we run into for all of the sections, many of which are unnecessary for basic characters.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:55, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Too many articles list "unnamed grandmother". I'd be happy if Laurie Strode had two fields "Brother" and "Children", that would be enough. Is the continuity difference in the name of her mother a matter for the infobox? Of course not.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 14:15, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

So where are we with the house keeping? The current template includes: First appearance, Last appearance, Creator, Portrayer, Voiced, Nickname(s), Aliases, Species, Gender, Occupation, Title, Family, Spouse(s), Significant other(s), Children, Relatives, Religion, Nationality, and six custom fields (3 under a customized section). Obviously the first five items are relevant...though I would like to discuss the relevance of "Last appearance". Since there is no such thing as a "last appearance" for a fictional character only a "Most recent" appearance do we really need it? To me, "Last appearance" is more akin to "Date of death", because without context as to what "Last" actually means it could mean the character was killed off, written off, or just stopped appearing with no actual explaination. Since fictional characters can appear at any time, there is never truly a "final" appearance even when killed.

Anyway, I think we discussed the fact that we can probably merge all of the relationship fields. Meaning, we probably don't need to separate out "Family, Spouse, Significant other, children, and relatives". A single field can encompass that, maybe just "Family" or "Relatives", and I think the inclusion of "who are essential to understanding the character" being added to the description section for that field. This way, we don't have full on family trees in the infobox.

We also discussed the merging of "Alias" and "Nickname". In my opinion, if the nickname is relevant and not just some one off thing someone finds funny (i.e. it's actually what the other characters call said character) then clearly it's something the character goes by and it probably better considered an "Alias". An alias is just "otherwise called". It doesn't have to be some top secret no one knows this is you type of name.

I don't think anyone had issues with removing "Religion" and "Nationality" as they really don't have value for understanding a character. I don't think most of the character articles we have even fill those fields out, and if they do I'd be interested in seeing what types of shows use those fields to begin with. I also include "Gender" in this area of "just get rid of it". Most characters' genders are obvious from either their names, or their pictures in the infobox. I think if it's not that obvious, then use one of the custom fields to generate a section for "Gender" so that it's clear to a reader who my assume the wrong gender for a character (this is probably going to be more prevalent for Sci-Fi aliens/monsters/etc. where it is not that clear).

Finally, I think maybe shortening the custom fields down to 4, with 2 being part of the main body and 2 being part of the custome sectioning option (basically, remove 1 custom field from each section).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with all of that. We can increase custom fields to 3 if there is a great need.陣内_Jinnai 19:03, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I would get rid of gender for sure. If it's an interesting matter (e.g. a transsexual character, or a history of retcons like Birdo), then the discussion ought to go in the prose (and maybe even Lead section). 4 is generous for custom fields, I'd say. Slash away anything that's either a magnet for cruft or retentive fans to add explanations to. What about religion, though? Some shows (e.g. Glee), make a point of dividing their characters along religious lines, and in many shows (for more examples: Buffy, Family Guy), religion or lack thereof is an important tool for characterisation. Surely one line saying "Evangelical Christian" or "None (atheist)" would be harmless, perhaps even quite effective at giving a broad summary? If the character has inconsistent or nebulous beliefs, then don't list them -- the fear is, of course, of editors dropping in their theory of Lisa Simpson's understanding of her Buddhism, or whether Hayley Smith is really an atheist or not. Are there other issues of contention here to discuss? I think our guiding principle can be that less is more when it comes to making infoboxes functionally useful.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 22:48, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

In the case of Glee or other shows where religion is part of the storyline (or at least character development) I say, "That's why we have those custom fields". If it's really important to the character then use one of the custom fields. I cannot imagine that we're going to have a lot of characters that require all 4 (or even 6) of the custom fields to include things essential to understanding the character in question.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:01, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. They're not universal to "The Fictional Character" in every permutation.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 00:21, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Also "cause" should be removed too.陣内_Jinnai 01:44, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Is "cause" still active? It's not listed on the template schematic anymore? If it is, then I agree. That one, along with "Occupation" and "Title" if they are still active.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:16, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I favor keeping the "Last appearance" parameter, because whenever a show is over, a character does have a last appearance, and it needn't be the last ep of a show (just like the "first appearance" doesn't have to be the pilot ep). If a character is assumed to appear no more (killed off or show has ended), the "Last appearance" field can be filled. If it's a character that is presumed to regularly appear, in practice the field is left open in the awaiting of closure, and doesn't show up for the reader. "Nationality" had some significance in shows with an international nature like Stargate Atlantis and maybe even Lost, but most shows are national, so I wouldn't mind seeing the "nationality" parameter dropped. As for the rest, merge all family parameters into one, merge "nickname(s)"+"aliases", and drop the rest in favor of custom fields. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:09, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Buffy the Vampire Slayer is over, yet all of those characters continue to appear in the "Season 8" comic book, which is covered on their respective pages. So, when a show is over there is always a possibility of another appearance for a fictional character.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:45, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

True, but this only seems to happen in franchises, and most media of fiction are not franchises. Since this attempt of redesigning the infobox is aimed at non-special cases (i.e. non-franchises), a character can be presumed to have his last appearance at the latest when his TV show/manga series/whatever is not renewed anymore. In the few cases that s/he still reappears unexpectedly, update the infobox (it's not different from an actor making a new movie). If it is expected that the character reappears like in ongoing TV sereis, simply leave the field empty (... so that the field doesn't have to be updated after each new TV episode). – sgeureka ^t•c 14:20, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

But what is the point of the "last appearance" field to begin with? It doesn't have the same value as "first appearance". There is only ever one first appearance, but "last" is never really "last" but really "most recent". "Last" is definitive and there is nothing definitive about fictional characters. It just seems like we're trying to provide importance to an identifier that, without context as to what made it the "last" appearance, establishes little importance by itself.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:54, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Maybe rephrase it to "Final appearance"?.陣内_Jinnai 18:05, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Would that be better or worse? I think if it must stay, then "Latest appearance" would probably be better than "Last" or "Final" given their definitive criteria.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:53, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

That is probably worst as it always implies "they could come back". For some series, that's perfectly acceptable. For others, if the character dies and its based on real-world mechanics, they aren't coming back, unless its a flashback. If we did that we'd have to require things to be listed by episode number without exception which is not a good practice to get into.陣内_Jinnai 18:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that shows the problem that I was bringing up. "Final" or even "Last" implies that they'll never come back. If they weren't written out of a show, didn't die, but the show just ended then they don't really have a "Final" or "Last" appearance. If they did die or were written out, again we run the issue of suggesting that they'll never come back and even in real world mechanics that isn't true because of flashbacks, dreams, etc. Look at Soaps. They're based in the "real world" yet people die and come back all the time. "Latest" has it's own issues, as you pointed out.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:54, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I strongly disagree that the first appearance is in anyway different in importance to the last appearance. A character's arc begins with his first appearance and ends with his last appearance, so both parameters are equally necessary. (So as to not go in circles, see above for my opinion if a character is assumed to appear again). And "last" does in general not imply "final": My last paycheck came a few days ago, but that doesn't mean that I won't get another one at the end of this month. "Last" can mean both "(So far) latest" and "Final", and as you're right that we never know if a character ever appears again, this ambiguity is even helping us here. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:57, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

So, with exception to the "last appearance", it seems we're all in agreement about the other changes?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:01, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Fortunately, the dissenting argument doesn't make a strong case. "First" is fixed - it's relative to a creation process, it's Real World Interesting. Last is best discussed in the prose. For example, characters who have films to follow their TV series (Sex and the City), or who appear in a series of adverts or jokes or stage shows (Blackadder), comic books (Buffy), or whose "Final" appearances are assumptive (e.g. former Doctor Who comparisons usually get their last appearance put down as their most recent appearance whenever they appear). IF they have a fixed arc and final canonical appearance - say, for example, the character in question is Mortiarty, or Shakespeare's Falstaff - then this can be usefully summarised in the lead section. The prose of the main article can then more finely discuss how other writers have since used or reinterpreted the character. It is irreducibly less important because it doesn't change or add anything compared to any other stage in character development. It is fundamentally less important even than "Reintroductions" (as you might get in long-running shows, soaps, comic books, etc.).~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 14:30, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Yea, i think we can impliment all the other changes. Let's not waste an oppurtunity just because of "last appearance" to overhaul the rest. We can discuss that one at length after. Make certain to add a code so that templates with that will have depracated category we, or others, can later go in and easily fix.陣内_Jinnai 18:27, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what code to add to the template for that to happen. Do you, or do you know someone good with HTML that can do it without corrupting the whole template? I'm afraid I'd mess something up if I tried to add anything.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:06, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok, what's the final verdict everyone? What needs to go, what needs to stay, and how many custom fields should we have?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:42, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Request

• Template is protected, so only an administrator can remove the categories above that we agreed needed to be removed. In addition, add the appropriate coding so that we can track articles that are not using the deprecate parameters.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:56, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

  It would be great if you could put something in the sandbox, then I can implement the changes. I could read through the entire thread (WP:TLDR), and code it up myself, but it will take a bit longer. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:46, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

• • I have altered Template:Infobox character/sandbox to the version I believe was agreed upon in the above discussion. Obviously, if I left something out, or took something out that should not have been removed then it will be noted and we'll just put in another request to have it corrected.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:37, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Unfortunately the template has changed substantially since the sandbox was coded. I can't copy it over otherwise these subsequent edits would be lost. Can you resynchronise and recode the sandbox, and then reactivate the request? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:30, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I'm a little confused. I'm not really familiar with HTML completely, so I don't think I quite understand the problem. Which page is the one that needs to be corrected and how does it need to be corrected? I don't think I get what "resync" is supposed to look like for these pages. If you could help me understand I'll try and do it as soon as possible.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:27, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

What it means is that you'll have to ...

1. copy the source code of the live template into the sandbox template
2. make the changes you require to the sandbox template
3. request that the sandbox is copied over using {{editprotected}}

— Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:30, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Updates

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

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

Inclusion of

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

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

Cause/Reason

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

September 2010

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tracking

We have the following tracking categories

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sex

Is there some reason why this template includes a field euphemistically called "Gender", when Sex is the correct term?
This is an encyclopedia. We are not squeamish around here.
Varlaam (talk) 19:43, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Probably so someone doesn't fill in the field with "often" or "never"? That's the problem with words that have one than one meaning. I personally don't see the point in having either gender or sex in the infobox. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:47, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't beleive there was any real dissention about removing the "Gender" field in the discussion(s) aboe, or a few others.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:01, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Vandals will always damages pages. But the fact is that the genders are three —masculine, feminine, and neuter— while the sexes are two —male and female. To this end, the search "sex" should go to a disambiguation page and not to a page describing the act. Q43 (talk) 13:18, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, sexes are two.

Gender, when referring to nouns, is a long list, masculine, feminine, neuter, but also "common", human vs. object, animate vs. inanimate, and so on; it becomes a more complicated subject outside of the handful of Western European languages that we are most familiar with.

Gender, when referring to people, can have that more complex meaning too, where post-operative male-to-female transsexual would be one distinct classification.

But we are talkin' boy/girl here, and the word for that is Sex, not Gender.

In data processing, you would have a pulldown box with Male/Female, or radio buttons with those choices, or a single character input field that accepts M/F/- (for undefined/unavailable).

Does our string processing allow that any string such that lower(string) <> "male" || "female" automatically gets rejected?

Varlaam (talk) 08:21, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Gender is more useful than sex for classifying transgender characters (e.g. Alexis Meade, down as 'transwoman').~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 15:40, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Merge family and relatives

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

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

Unnamed family members

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

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

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

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

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

Race or colour

Other than Sex (see above), the most significant distinguishing characteristic for a person standing 500 yds away is skin colour. And yet we have no such field?
The IMDb dealt with this problem years ago by encouraging photos of actors, so that no one had to create a label for Mariah Carey in so many words.
But we always seem to have copyright troubles with images around here.

In lots of cases, you are naturally going to distinguish the characters as "the blonde", the redheaded guy", "the black guy" and "the fat guy", and there is nothing right now that allows for that most natural form of identification.
"What is the name of the actor who played the funny fat guy on the TV show I saw 5 minutes of last night?" That is a real life question, and it cannot be readily resolved as matters stand at present.
Varlaam (talk) 08:30, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

It might be really simple just to have a field called "Distinguishing characteristics".

The format could be undefined.

You could enter "Mohawk haircut, wears glasses, never laughs" in that field.

Or "the one and only black guy", if that were the case.

Precisely what went into the field would be determined by those best able to make those adjudications, the viewer-editors of that show, who know how to tell the various characters apart in a shorthand fashion.

Varlaam (talk) 09:01, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Typically, a physical description of the character is perfectly suited to prose, but not to an infobox. For example, we have sources discussing Buffy's hair colour and makeup, or Padme Amidala's physical appearance, or how Patrick Bateman looks and how Christian Bale played it well, etc. These kind of judgements wouldn't work in an infobox, because where they're worth making they're worth making well.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 15:39, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

New Field - Date of Birth

May characters have a date of birth, for example SpongeBob Squarepants. However, the character infobox does not have the birth_date field that the Person Infobox Template has. I propose that this field is added, please could an administrator take care of this. HenryHayes (talk) 10:48, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

This field has been contentious. How about adding it like this? Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 15:40, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

By the way, an entire section just for his date of birth, is a bit much. I would say that would not stand in a GA review. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 15:42, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Infoboxes should not contain "birth date" of fictional characters. Fictional elements should be put in the body text. SpongeBob wasn't born. It was created. The use of {{birth date and age}} gives the false impression that the character grows older every day! -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:45, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Fictional characters are not born. They are created. He has a date of appearance, not a date of birth even if a show provides him an actual date. Fictional characters also do not die, which is why there is no date of death. There isn't even a "last appearance" because being fictional means you can appear even when your character has been "killed off". So, any "birth" or "death" categories shouldn't even be placed in the custom category, because they are inappropriate...as they treat the fictional character as if he was real.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:53, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree with above 2. CTJF83 chat 19:39, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

One-time character

There are parameters for the character's first and last appearance but what if the character only appeared in one episode? I've seen it done with the first and last parameters being identical but that looks silly. McLerristarr | Mclay1 10:46, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Generally speaking, one-time characters rarely ever need a mention in character lists, forget about infoboxes. The few shows that may have notable one-off characters (e.g. Doctor Who with Astrid Peth) sometimes already have custom infoboxes with special fields for one-time appearances, e.g. "only=" in {{Infobox Doctor Who character}}. If not, you can use a custom field from here ({{Infobox character}}). But I'd still advice against using an infobox for a one-time character in most cases. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:58, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. You can use a custom field if there is strong evidence to the notability of that character. I'm not saying there isn't, but 99.99-% of the time they won't be.陣内_Jinnai 22:57, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Significant other

I hate it. In the few instances where a 'significant other' is notable (i.e. major part of character's storylines, supercouple phenomenon, etc.) it will be covered as is appropriate in the Lead section. For example, you would mention Kat Moon's relationship with Alfie in her lead (but probably no one else), Buffy's with Angel and Spike (but probably not Riley or Parker or Principal Wood), and you would mention Rictor and Shatterstar in one another's as a pretty interesting development in comic book representations of minorities. The fact of relationships on TV programs isn't the problem. The problem is that they are not really what infoboxes should be for. Infoboxes should not be providing 'biographical' information about characters, only the essentials we might leave out of the lead -- their first episode, their writer, other actors who have portrayed the character (e.g. a BBC radio production of Hitchhiker's Guide), maybe some tidbits that are interesting (e.g., the Jason Voorhees article lists "Signiature weapon: machete", which is fine).

Yet having the field simply encourages debates (such as over which Glee one-episode relations are 'notable') and generally bloats and makes infoboxes ugly. For example, I'm pretty opposed to listing Drusilla, Buffy and Harmony on the Spike article as it is such an unsubtle "one-size fits all" field: Drusilla, a backstory/early sig. other; Buffy, his complicated lover, almost-rape victim, later romantically-tinged close ally; Harmony, his annoying 'bit on the side', all equated. But Buffy articles and equivalents aren't the worst for this. Teen shows are. The boyfriend-swapping on 90210, Glee, The OC etc. is complicated because each transitory relationship is presented as "real love" at least for the duration of that particular story arc, until the next one comes along and provides a very subtle retcon. Following the text objectively, they all belong; using real life standards, probably none of them do. For another example, contemplate applying the significant other field to How I Met Your Mother character articles: the show's narrative has a 'present' (future) where everyone has an unnamed spouse (unnamed people being mentioned in infoboxes irritates me), and in our 'present' many, many weekly or seasonal boyfriends/girlfriends. I propose that field should just be removed entirely. It doesn't lend essential information to a character in the same way for example a nickname, which characterizes but doesn't belong in a Lead section on its own grounds, complements the infobox.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 15:16, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Two things I see:

First, is a slightly different opinion about the function of the infobox. I tend to look at it as a short for list of the important information about and recognizing the character. That includes real world context - show/book/film, actor, creator, first appearance, etc - and in story material - role, notable "props", etc. SO or "major romantic plot threads" is something that can be argued to fit in with that. It's easiest to deal with in regard to books or "short" book series and hardest, as you point out, with extended serial fiction - soaps and teen soaps being the far end.

The runs into the second, how the heck to stick to "notable" plot lines while having a reasonably short list in the 'box. The "notable" portion is going to be nigh impossible to nail down in some cases and we should try to avoid the potential for edit wars over it.

It may help if we put ground-rules in place over what goes into the field such as:

• Major/primary/main romances only. And do for TV shows that can be defined as either being a plot thread that runs a season or more (full season, not just a few shows) or the person the character is constantly returning to. And with TV, annotate the season(s).
• The SO has to have a name, preferably on that can be linked to an article on the character or an entry on a "List of characters on/in..." article.
• If it's to complex or long, contentious, or in constant flux, it stays out of the 'box.

I'm not sure those will work and field may need to be nixed entirely.

- J Greb (talk) 16:03, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, based on the previous discussion we had all "relationship" fields are to merged into a single category, with only the relevant characters being included in the infobox. I have updated the sandbox and am awaiting an Admin to copy that to this page (that was a couple of weeks ago).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:06, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

may try to be a bit more pro-active.陣内_Jinnai 16:12, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I left a message with the Admin that requested we put it in the sandbox. Only an admin can edit this page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:56, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Am I reading right that the actual consensus was to remove - polite term I think - all of the in story information? Since the sandbox retains has 2 - Aliases and Notable relationship(s) - field compared to the current 13 that is. - J Greb (talk) 19:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

The consensus was that the majority of those in-universe categories are not relevant to every character, yet people are filling them out because they are there. Thus, it was decided that the custom fields (there are between 4 and 6 custome fields) would be used to customize the content to each character as is relevant. The items that were removed were 3 or 4 different variations of "Family/Friends/Relationship", Religion, Nationality, and other things that probably should not be there to begin with but were added over time. So, the move was the have custom fields for the story information that is "essential to understanding the character", which is what the MOS states.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:14, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

hrm... Is there a problem with setting up "pass through" templates like the Star Wars one? - J Greb (talk) 20:33, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

What is the "pass through" template?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:12, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Something like {{Star Wars character}} where, for whatever reason, this template is called through a secondary template. Mostly they function to provide consistancy and simplicity over a number of article instead of having to rely on each article faithfully using the same variable fields in placing this template. They are still limited though by this templates parameters. - J Greb (talk) 22:29, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

My main problem with including "notable" SOs is that if they're notable, they're in the lead. This isn't just for Lois and Clark couples. The lead will and should always do the job to the extent the job needs to be done. If, in the bizarre occasions where it can't, it can be one of the 3 custom fields allowed, no?~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 22:34, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

My only issue would be that we would start segregating templates and every topic would want their own infobox. Additionally, I don't think that just because Jar Jar Binks needs his species field filled out that Luke Skywalker does as well. Unless otherwise specified, it's obvious from his picture that he's human. The same with his gender. It's evident by his picture, yet it's filled out because the option is there and other characters from SW are filling it out. It's relevant to some, not to all, yet it's being treated like it is.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:22, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree. There should be an essay on what goes and what doesn't. (Particularly newer) editors want one size to fit all between pages belonging to a franchise, and there is also a tendency to have things cross-apply; so if on a True Blood characters it lists significant others, an IP would be likely to come and apply that to the Spike article, and another editor seeing that would apply it to the Riley page for example. It's memetic. There ought to be, really, an essay about the fictional character infobox. But before anyone can write that, perhaps we as editors need to reach a (clearer) consensus on what we think the infobox is for; we do seem to agree, in large part, as is, but our outlook is not widely communicable.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 11:24, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

The more I look at all of the changes, it seems weird to isolate "Alias" and "Relationships", as again these don't apply to every character. What if we made ALL in-story elements custom fields. We could add another one or two custom fields and let each field be developed as appropriate. I think the only information that needs to be mandated is the real world information about the character. Everything else is going to change significantly from character to character.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:17, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

That works by me in principle. I'd worry that the next kids show to come out will attract infoboxes with all sorts of custom fields, however, once what I think of as the "community of anonymous, Wikiped-literature IP editors" sees the complete creative abandon these present. Having set fields limits the practice to those fields - there should be a way, however, to encourage editors to not use the fields. A very small amount of custom fields would necessitate editors (as page or project 'communities', which is what often forms around debates regarding what to do) pick the most important 2 or 3, and argue their inclusion against WAF rules.

In sum, the only necessary fields are First appearance, Creator, and Portrayed by. Another could be Media (as in, to give a quick listing of all the media in which a character appears, e.g. "Television, later comics and webseries") or again, things with more real world focus. If we treat a character infobox the same way we treat the infobox for an album or film, it becomes much clearer what to do: we do not, for example, discuss a song's "tempo" or "lyrical composition" in its infobox, though they may be "important". The in-universe fields ought to be applied (as we've discussed, where it's important) only insofar as they describe relationships between characters as concepts or products, the equivalent of listing a "sample" in a song or "related media" to a TV show.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 19:52, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Removal of in-universe fields

Further thought, perhaps on the Template: page we ought to simply put down some usage pointers? For example, encouraging editors not to list redundant information such as "Gender: Male" for John Kramer unless it's actually a fascinating aspect of the character. (Or we could just get rid of gender; sex-change characters are few and far between, and they can easily justify the custom field.) Also reaffirming that there is no 'present' in fiction and that infoboxes discuss characters according to their cultural reception (e.g. Bree Van De Kamp always, never Bree Hodge).~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 20:00, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

What classifies something here as "in-universe"? "Name" FE, is in-universe info and yet that is a fundamentally essential item that should not only be a field, but probably a required one.陣内_Jinnai 23:47, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Except, the name appears as the article title and the first item in the lead sentence. So, it's technically covered twice before we ever even get to the infobox. Just to point out, I'm not for cutting in-universe info completely. I am just seeing how odd it would look to identify some things over others, when there is not a single piece of in-universe information (exception to the "name" which is both in-universe and real world content at the same time) that is consistently present across most character pages and also essential to understanding said characters (requirement from WP:WAF). Thus, my new proposal was additional custom fields for the allowance of all in-universe info that is essential to be customized per character. Obviously, if people just fill up all the custom fields we can scrutinize that on an individual basis (e.g., if Luke Skywalker goes up for FAC I would argue that we don't need to have "Gender" and "Species" filled out as his picture clearly identifies that he is a male human being).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:22, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, if we look at all the "in-universe" fields, aside from name, I'd also put nickname/alias (one field). Why? Similar reasons for name. If a character has a nickname/alias, more often then not, reviewers will note, if not outright use that nickname/alias.陣内_Jinnai 01:38, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Tracking problem

Looking as some Star Wars characters, the tracking part of the template seems to mess up the articles. I believe that is due to the fact Star Wars (and whatever is used as series) in the SW characters are wikilinked. For example, Luke Skywalker, Kyle Katarn and Starkiller. Harry Blue5 (talk) 21:07, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

And it looks like the link coding is the issue... And I think I have a fix... - J Greb (talk) 21:21, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing it. Harry Blue5 (talk) 21:26, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

And fixed. - J Greb (talk) 21:27, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 198.102.153.2, 12 April 2011

Please roll back today's edits immediately. It has completely hosed hundreds of articles like, Amanda Young. You can't pass wikilinked text after the pipe to a category! 198.102.153.2 (talk) 22:52, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Note that this particular instance could be corrected by changing the Saw infobox, but given that this template has 3500 transclusions, and the tracking category only has 1800 or so articles, we have no idea how many are screwed up (could be as many as half, but probably fewer due to server caching issues). 198.102.153.2 (talk) 23:06, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Found another one, HAL 9000, probably hundreds more ... 198.102.153.2 (talk) 23:10, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Not the right place to request this. I sent the new infobox for TfD but probably I could just tag it for speedy deletion. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:20, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

HAL 9000 doesn't use Template:Infobox Saw character though, so there indeed appears to be a problem with this infobox. Goodvac (talk) 23:25, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, which is why I made the request to rollback the edits! 198.102.153.2 (talk) 23:26, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Done. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:27, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Mind if I resinstate to actually look for unneeded italic and bolding which were causing the issue? - J Greb (talk) 23:31, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I do mind. Use the sandbox. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 23:32, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Bluntly: I didn't Realize ''[[Foo]]'' was in use for the parameter since the template has always automatically italicized the material. Adding a line to recognize the ' bypasses the problem. - J Greb (talk) 23:40, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

But for arguments sake, the basic code is here with examples here. - J Greb (talk) 00:23, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Question

Is there consensus to at least consolidate "Family", "Spouse(s)", "Children" and "Relatives"?

There seems to be but I want to make sure be for restructuring those fields.

- J Greb (talk) 15:34, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I put the changes in the sandbox for what I thought was the consensus. But nothing has happened yet. After I did it, I wondered if we just shouldn't customize all in-story information because it seems weird to only include certain ones when even they don't occur across the board. At the moment, there was still clear consensus to just have a "Relationship(s)" field though.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:41, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

The current diff with the sandbox here looks like it does quite a bit, and some of it makes no sense. (1) renumbers the fields to start with label3 rather than label4, which is odd, why not just go for label1 or not renumber at all, (2) removes lbl2, data2, lbl3, data3, but leaves lbl4, data4, lbl5, data5. Very odd to leave the highest numbers but remove a couple in the middle, (3) Removes |nickname= but keeps |alias=, (4) removes |species=, |gender=, |species=, |occupation=, |family=, |spouse=, |significantother=, |children=, |relatives=, |religion=, |nationality= (5) removes lbl23, data23, lbl24, data24, lbl25, data25 (6) removes lbl33, data33, lbl34, lbl35. Now I can see a point for remove much of this, but given the large number of articles in Category:Articles using Infobox character with multiple unlabeled fields, I would suggest making sure these fields are actually orphaned first. As J Greb suggested, perhaps a better move would be to start with something more minor, like merging a few fields, then go from there. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:27, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not well versed in that stuff, so I probably just screwed it up. If it makes better sense to have it listed a certain way, then I trust you because you seem to know more about it than I do. I think starting with the mergers is a fine way to go.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:31, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I think what happened is that we have been kicking around the idea of removing many of these fields for quite some time. In fact, I recall the thread that spawned the creation of Category:Articles using Infobox character with multiple unlabeled fields. There are few somewhat orthogonal things going on, (1) we have been refactoring the individual specialized character boxes to call this one, making it a meta-template, (2) we have been replacing the individual specialized character boxes with this one, and (3) we have been discussing reducing the amount of "in universe" cruft in this box. When we convert one of these specialized character boxes to use this one (either by refactoring or replacement) we frequently use many of the generic lbl/data fields to ensure that no information is lost (e.g., after TFD closures). I suspect the majority of the transclusions with multiple unlabeled fields are due to the refactoring of a specialized template to call this one. The other interesting thing that has happened is that each time we start a very limited discussion about addressing a very limited number of fields, the discussion balloons as other fields are piled on to the discussion. By the time the thread fades, it is not clear who supports what anymore. So, my suggestion, would be to try to start a targeted discussion about a limited number of fields either for merger or for removal. See how that goes, and resist the temptation to do everything at once. I think we can make some useful progress here if we are mindful of the issues involved. We can leave the discussion of the multiple lbl/data fields for later, when we have a clearer idea of when they are being used, and if that use is appropriate. I like the idea of using this as a meta-template, since it makes maintenance easier. But, there is of course potential for abusing the unlabeled fields. I too am guilty of trying to piling on more stuff in the prior discussions. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:07, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Where would you like to begin? The "Relationship" fields?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:26, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

My 2-ish¢

• spouse, children, and relatives can be folded into family with little trouble both thematically and by coding. There will still need to be a "clean up pass" done by editors to straighten the result on the articles.
• gender can be dropped. The case has been made that this is redundant with how the articles are written and the images used.

Beyond that there needs to be a clear direction on the remainder. Nickname, alias (two distinct things), religion, and nationality can be very relevant in some cases. And the SO field... I really thing it needs to be renamed, if kept, to "Relationships" and clearly defined for serial fiction. But it should be blindly dumped into the "family".

- J Greb (talk) 03:03, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Just focusing on one category at a time, I don't think we need a "Family" and "Relationship" field; one will suffice. I think that if you have to get specific in the categories then clearly the relationship isn't that essential to understanding the character. I think what will be important will be making it clear that regardless of whatever it is called, the infobox is not a family tree. It isn't meant to house every known character that is connected to the article subject.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:09, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think either a family or relationships field is useful at all, in any project. Where the relationship is notable (Angel or Lana Lang as lovers of heroes; Dawn Summers, Laurie Strode or Piper Halliwell as sisters, etc.) it's dealt with. Otherwise, listing every girlfriend or relative of Tom Scavo is exhaustive and pointless. It doesn't serve any purpose at all. Delete delete delete.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 22:46, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Positive development

J Greb (talk · contribs) has helpfully recreated {{Infobox Buffyverse character}} spawning out of a productive discussion between him, myself and Millahnna (talk · contribs). We decided the best way to sort out problems relating to the abuse (bloating) of fictional character infoboxes among articles relating to the Buffy franchise (e.g. Rupert Giles, Dawn Summers) was both an approach which immediately gave the infobox an upper limit to its capability, and which also supplied stricter guidelines on correct usage (see Template:Infobox Buffyverse character/doc). If any editors who frequent this page could offer further input this would be greatly appreciated. If this development for the Buffy WikiProject proves successful I imagine the model could be easily recreated quite well in other Wikiprojects with a large number of fictional character articles maligned by "biographically"-weighted infoboxes.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 10:43, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

"Information"

Can someone explain to me the point of an "Information" header halfway down the infobox? What is the creator and portrayer supposed to be if not "information"? Bradley0110 (talk) 14:33, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

It really should say "In-story information", or something to indicate that it's a section for non-real world content that is essential to understand the character.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:03, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Or "Characteristics"? Bradley0110 (talk) 15:33, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd go with "In story" since this template is used with characters from narrative prose. - J Greb (talk) 15:41, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Removing "last"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The last parameter does add a certain amount of speculation as to if there is a final appearance or if it's later, though that is why this is an encyclopedia we are always updating. The spirit on Wikipedia is that were all here to improve articles, and i'm not sure the result of this discussion matches that. As much as it's unverified speculation, it's also to the best of our knowledge the most verifiable information that we know of. I have commented out the last parameter of this template as a result of this discussion, but would have no prejudice towards a wider new RfC on this. The reason I would allow for this is because this is such a widely used template and i'm not sure were representing a full consensus of most editors here. -- DQ (t) (e) 20:00, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

---

Template:Uninvolved We need to revisit removing "last" from the infobox, as all it does is lead to unverified speculation that a character will never return. Why is it even important? Most characters last appearance is when the show ends anyway. CTJF83 19:10, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

FWIW "Last appearance" can be viewed as one of two things in sequential fiction - the character's most recent appearance or the appearance where the character is written out of a series.

The former would be a dynamic nightmare with serialized fiction. Literally each time a new book, issue, episode, game, or whatever is released, all of the character articles would need to be indexed.

The latter is more reasonable but still has issues. Closed series, those that are done, can justify this because new releases aren't going to happen. But on going series lack that certainty. Because of this the comic book character 'boxes only have "first" because publisher can, and have, brought characters back years or decades after their "last" or "final" appearance. And that's without dealing with "comic book death".

As for "...lead to unverified speculation that a character will never return." the flip is also valid - not noting a last appearance can lead to unverified speculation that the character may return. Removing the parameter is not going to alleviate either of those concerns.

"Most" is by definition not "All". Yes, when a particular series of sequential fiction - book, show, comic, etc - ends, most of the time most of the characters make it to that last installment. But then you get the notable characters that left before that final story or appear elsewhere after that one series ends.

- J Greb (talk) 20:19, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I'm for removing it. Even popular television shows have shown to transcend their original medium and carry on in other forms. Buffy, Angel, Dollhouse, Smallville, etc. To say "last" means, to me, that they will not be appearing again. In a fictional universe, this is not a definite...not even within a series itself (main shows, even those grounded in reality like Grey's Anatomy has shown that characters killed off can still come back on thes how). "Most recent" doesn't work as a category either because it insinuates that the character is actively on a show (or in some other medium). If it's removed completely, then there is no debate. The only episode of any real significance, and this could be challenged as well but not as easily, would be the incidence of first appearance.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 06:05, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Even if the actor is dead, you cannot be certain that they won't bring back the character with another actor, so the whole idea of a "final" episode for a character is wrong in a fictional universe. --Maitch (talk) 06:10, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Some fictional universes are complete (or, like Dr. Who, complete for now); would it be sufficient to add a comment limiting it to characters who are unlikely to have another episode? This is a wiki, and if the extremely unexpected (like a reemergence of Harcourt Fenton Mudd) happens, we can revise articles. Or call it latest? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:27, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

"Latest" is problematic since it would be applied across the board and be updated with each new installment of the series.

Also keep in mind this is the base template for most media - comics and video games being the current exceptions. narrowing a focus on just TV may not be a good thing.

- J Greb (talk) 21:23, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

All the more reason to remove it in my opinion because in comics and video games you are even less likely to have a "last" or "final" appearance. You can look at almost any comic book character and see that at one point (or several) they have "died", only to be resurrected in some other form within a few months.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:22, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

It should go.∞陣内Jinnai 23:46, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Does "last" even mean "final" or does it mean "latest" as in it keeps updating? I thought it was the latest. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 19:56, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

No, that would be a nightmare, you'd have to update it weekly or daily as I think is the case with some soap operas...it is used when the character "won't" appear anymore. CTJF83 21:39, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I've always been massively in favour of removing this field. The first appearance is singular, definite, and tells you lots about Real World Stuff. Th last appearance is indefinite, debatable, always subject to change, and nitpicky—issues like canon, cameos, spin-offs, and whatnot. It's simply not a useful field. Some people want to put in multiple answers like (regular), (cameo), (archive footage) and (guest). Which defeats the point even more. No Final field. It doesn't exist. Remove it.Zythe (talk) 22:37, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Soap opera characters have a last appearance because soap operas has a high turn-over of characters. I wouldn't like to see this removed, though most soap characters use a different infobox. If there's a "first" then there should also be a "last". So keep both, or remove both, but not one or the other. –anemoneprojectors– 15:54, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I've seen plenty of SOAP characters get "killed" and turn up years later with their "death" supposedly faked, or realization that they didn't actually die but were in a coma. Given that SOAP characters don't even have episode titles, only dates, I would say that it's largely irrelevant to them as well. In their case, they don't even need the "first" because it's just an arbitrary date, and as you pointed out they use the soap character infobox anyway.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:43, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

It would be better for the body of the article, so the reason for their supposed last appearance can be explained. CTJF83 20:03, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

If it's important, it goes in the lead section. Often in the case of last appearances, it's contradictory information, a la "Exited the series in XX... surprise return... killed off again..." To my mind, the first appearance should always be followed by the year in brackets as well, to highlight that its importance is strictly a real-world one: Buffy is a character from 1992—which tells you a whole lot about her, implicitly, when you think about it—and whether or not the character was reconceived in various forms—in 1996, 2007 and elsewhen—her essential beginning was 1992. Ditto Batman: 1939 tells you a whole lot about him, and even if 1985 and 2011 are important dates too, they don't quite boil it down the same way. A "final" appearance is quite unpinnable.Zythe (talk) 20:16, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Additionally, I forgot to add, the Buffy Wikiproject already got rid of "last" by resorting to their own infobox which emphasises real world significance of information. It's about time the main infobox played catch-up!Zythe (talk) 20:19, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I see I am in the minority here, but I still favor keeping the "Last" parameter. I already explained my stance in #Cleaning house earlier this year, being in short: When there is a defined "First", there is also a defined "Last". If it is known that the "Last" hasn't happened yet (e.g. in an on-going TV show), leave the field open. If a character unexpectedly appears again after the currently listed "Last", then update that parameter. If there is debate about how "Last" is defined (e.g. death, last appearance as a main cast member, last cameo,...), I could as easily make the same case for the "First" parameter (e.g. first appearance as a child flashback, first cameo before becoming a regular, ...) .However, while looking at my Stargate pet articles, I noticed that quite a few of their main character infoboxes haven't listed the "Last" parameters for years even though the particular Stargate shows haven't been produced for a while. It seems even the fan editors don't care so much about the "Last" parameter (or they care so much that they edit-war over it). So I'll accept whatever consensus emerges here. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:02, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

There is never a debate on first. It is always based on a singular and definite real-world appearance. A small few might make the case that there is room for confusion in the rare example where a character makes non-canon appearances before being properly introduced, but the answer is clear in those cases even then (John Connor - in which case the lead needs to discuss his being central to T1 anyway, long before the sequels and comic books). It has nothing to do with when they became a "regular" or were "born" within the fiction, and only when they first appeared in the public forum after conception.

(For example, Donna Noble cameoed in the Doctor Who episode "Doomsday" (2007) before a proper appearance in "The Runaway Bride" (2007) and joining the cast in "Partners in Crime" (2008), and her first appearance is always "Doomsday"; even if there are numerous flashbacks to her life prior to that episode, it means nothing, because that's not how we write about fiction.)

You actually illustrate yourself how the Last field has no utility whatsoever; it is absolutely not any of those in-universe things (the fictional death of a fictional person, or 'moving away' of a character at an arbitrary point in the fiction, or the last 'regular' appearance in terms of star billing—why would it be?). And in most of the many popular fictional franchises, there is rarely a last; Star Wars, Buffy, Terminator, Sherlock Holmes, all these characters reappear in new forms all the time. Laurie Strode, for example, has ONE first appearance (Halloween, 1978), and even though there is a continuity reboot, there is no "last" for the Jamie Lee Curtis version, and no second "first" for the Scout Taylor-Compton version. Where rarely it is applicable (say, completed four-season dramas like The OC), would the lead not cover it? To have "appeared in all episodes" implies being in the series finale, and the exceptions to that (Marissa being killed off due to the writers' creative struggles) earns a sentence in the lead on that basis as it is. (And arguably in many of those cases, why are there even articles about characters from The OC anyway? They certainly had very little discernible real-world impact.) The problem with infoboxes is they decontextualise everything, and a good article will justify the weighting and significance of every point it makes through the copy.Zythe (talk) 12:13, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

As a reader of character articles, I support removing the "Last" field per the arguments that others have made, basically being that it is too nebulous for proper use, whereas the "First" field is very definite. I agree with some editors' comments that explaining disappearances and reappearances in the lead section is a good way to go, within reason. (Not sure which character would be the most extreme case of reappearing again and again, but I wouldn't want a laundry list of every instance.) Erik (talk | contribs) 13:12, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

"There is never a debate on first." - Are you certain? There are a bunch of A Game of Thrones (book 1) characters who weren't cast before season 2 of Game of Thrones (TV series), but who may have been played by unnamed extras in season 1. Or take any unseen character who actually appears (somewhat) on-screen at some point - like the "mother" in How I Met Your Mother, or maybe Mrs. Wollowitz in The Big Bang Theory in the future. I can definately see fans fight over the "First" parameter there for the same reasons we're having this debate about the "Last" parameter here. (Granted, the instances of such cases will be much fewer.) I am just saying this for clarification, not to create a new long discussion. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:29, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

But that shouldn't be a debate, because "first" should always be first. If they first appeared in a book, then that is their first appearancance. If a character is not actually identified until later, but you see them, then you would use when they are actually identified and clarify that they were seen prior to that. I think editors battle in those cases because they are giving more stock to certain mediums. For instance, a lot of people want Buffy Summers to be based on just the television series, but her first appearance was the 1992 film. Regardless of how much more popular the TV show was.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:14, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

There is no compulsion to use the field, and no reason that more informative entries that a date or episode number cannot be used, such as "Ongoing" or "End of series". Rich Farmbrough, 12:25, 20 October 2011 (UTC).

In practice, if the field exists, editors will fill it out. So many character articles pedantically describe the obviously male, white and American in terms of those qualities, and then list every off-handedly mentioned relative from a one-off joke here or there. The infoboxes are problematic in and of themselves, objectively, which is why so many fictional character articles (the vast majority) are appalling (which I say as a someone whose main Wikipedia interest is fiction and fictional characters).Zythe (talk) 20:37, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Not so--most fields in most templates are not filled in, unless they become relevant. Editors do not, for example, fill in date of death or successor until they become relevant. In those cases where there is information to use for it, it's appropriate, and there is no way to do it without having it in the template. Rich's suggestion to use ongoing or end of series is another good option to leaving it blank. We don't eliminate having relevant information in Wikipedia because people will dispute over it. DGG ( talk ) 23:30, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

"Date of Birth" and "Date of Death" are not standard fields any longer. When they were, they were filled in pretty regularly. Now they go in "optional" categories, and even that is questionable as to whether they should be used. With "Last", you can never definitively say when a "last" appearance is. You cannot use "on going" or "end of series" either because of the shift now for popular fiction to be exploited in other mediums. Willow is a popular character from the TV show, but if we put "end of series" in there, it wouldn't cover her appearances in the comic books that followed the show.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:59, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.