Template talk:Infobox character

Adding a "deceased" or "alive" field to Template:Infobox character

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#Adding a "deceased" or "alive" field to Template:Infobox character. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 (talk) 07:00, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

RfC announce: Religion in infoboxes

There is an RfC at Template talk:Infobox#RfC: Religion in infoboxes concerning what What should be allowed in the religion entry in infoboxes. Please join the discussion and help us to arrive at a consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:41, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 25 February 2016

Add parameters father and mother. Visibly it can be shown in parents / family, but while editing please allow to add father / mother. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 20:37, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

@Frietjes can you please help here? -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 17:57, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Capankajsmilyo, better to see if there are objections first. there was recent a push to remove the less commonly used parameters. Frietjes (talk) 18:00, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I made a similar change to Template:Infobox person at Special:Diff/705548038/708274166. I can see how this would be useful, since it doesn't require knowing the unbulleted list notation. I changed:

| label59    = Parent(s)
| data59     = {{{parents|}}}

to

| label59    = Parent{{#if:{{{parents|}}}|(s)|{{#if:{{{father|}}}|{{#if:{{{mother|}}}|s|(s)}}|(s)}}}}
| data59     = {{#if:{{{parents|}}}|{{{parents}}}|{{Unbulleted list|{{#if:{{{father|}}}|{{{father}}} (father)}}|{{#if:{{{mother|}}}|{{{mother}}} (mother)}}}}}}

--Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:39, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. (This comment is for procedural purposes only. I earlier set |answered=no but the requester took exception to this because his request had not been formally accepted or rejected.[1]) --AussieLegend (✉) 06:00, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

@AussieLegend: do you actually oppose the suggestion? The proposal sat here for a week without comment ... — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:38, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

This is a template talk page that is probably only watched by a handful of editors, so a lack of input is understandable and doesn't necessarily mean there would be wide support for the proposal. The template is used on 5,300 pages so we shouldn't be adding parameters each time somebody requests one. The proposed parameters really need discussion, especially as to how they would be implemented (as separate parameters or just listed under "Family"? Are they even needed at all. Should we also add a parameter for siblings?) Adding them without discussion is likely to see them widely unused, as most editors don't seem to bother checking infobox instructions - they just copy what they've seen in other articles. I can see arguments both for and against inclusion. I can see a need to improve the template documentation and that could resolve any issues with not knowing how to use {{ubl}}. {{Infobox television}} used to use line breaks but we changed the documentation to specify using {{Plainlist}} and there have been no problems. So yes, I do oppose it, but only because there hasn't been sufficient discussion. On the subject of adding parameters without discussion, check out sep. Added in 2007 and apparently never used. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:22, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

@AussieLegend does this mean that if nobody cares to reply to my query, it means rejection? Do the proposals have to suffer because of inactive members on this template? -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 13:35, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

@Capankajsmilyo: I notified the Wikiprojects listed at the top of this page for you. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:07, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

@Capankajsmilyo: Essentially yes. You need to convince others that the parameter needs to be added. If you can't get a response to your request you need to advertise it, as Cebr1979 did, when he posted notification of the "'Last appearance' in the infobox" section below at WT:TV. You might care to read up on RfCs before plopping a tag at the beginning of an already existing discussion. An RfC needs a clear question, and this one has been polluted by subsequent discussion. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:33, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

@AussieLegend that's quite unique. In all other locations, the criteria for rejection was if people oppose it. If nobody oppose, it's considered deemed acceptance everywhere else. Can you please point to some WP Policy which states in manner you are speaking. And ya, thanks Ahecht -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 16:30, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

• Like the idea of "parent" parameter, but only under the condition that we shouldn't be falling into the gender binary assumption in the design of the data: some characters are going to have two mothers, for example, or be parented by a collective group, or non-gender assigned individuals (I am thinking gods in certain mythological contexts). Or perhaps, there will be both biological parents and non-biological parents, that may or may not align with standard assumptions about species/gender/etc. Sadads (talk) 16:15, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

@Capankajsmilyo:Not unique at all, WP:PER says edits likely to be controversial should have prior consensus, and this is actually the tack that most responsible editors take as most new parameters can be controversial. It's better to discuss first, especially when a high-use template is the subject. I've seen more than a few edits made that have resulted in complaints. In the programming world it has always been standard practice, at least in the past 40+ years that I've been programming, to evaluate requests first, before implementing them. The people at Help talk:Citation Style 1 can take seemingly forever to implement a request just to take a template back to the revision from yesterday (with good reason). There has to be a valid reason to add parameters and, having seen Sadads' comments in the post above mine, which are from outside the areas I normally edit, I'm even more dubious. What if somebody asks to add mother2, mother3, mother4, mother5, mother6, etc based on the valid suggestion that there may be the case where a character has more than one mother. Should we just add it because nobody oppposes? We would eventually have a bloated infobox full of one-off use parameters. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:08, 8 March 2016 (UTC)`

@AussieLegend - I will the first one to oppose any non-acceptable request. Alternatively, you are always there to oppose. Please don't pre-assume that no-comment means rejection, because it does not. Cutting the long story short, Infobox character is used on a lot of pages about persons (fictional / mythological). So please add atleast basic parameters of Infobox person. As regards multiple parents is considered, if you check the suggestion of Ahecht, the editor can always use parents. However, in case of normal conditions, the editor can use father and mother. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 17:21, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

John Smith
In-universe information
Family	Jack Smith (father) Jill Smith (mother)

The basic parameter of infobox televisionperson is parents. mother and father didn't exist until 4 days ago. We don't need extra parameters just to save a handful of keystrokes. The infobox does the same thing without them. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:45, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

A majority of characters have one father and one mother. Other cases would use |parents=, and the documentation should indicate that |father= and |mother= should only be used if the character has one mother or one father. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 18:20, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Except that we often don't know the mother and father details when a character article is created and even when members of a family are progressively identified, it's rarely in a defined order. A sister might be the first known relative, then a mother, then a brother, or virtually any other combination. If a parent is first known, and then another member is identified, mother or father would have to be replaced with family. It's far easier to just stick with family from the beginning and avoid complications. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:50, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I am not able to get what you are trying to say, but still, I will invite you to visit the pages of hundreds of characters of Hindu mythology which have a father and a mother. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 10:12, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Alternatively, if you are facing so much of issue in adding such a minor field, it would be good to create another infobox, like Infobox Hindu character. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 10:14, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Do you mean something like {{Infobox deity}}? --AussieLegend (✉) 12:08, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

That will also work if it means that parameters |mother= |father= can be included. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 07:12, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Those parameters are already in Infobox deity. You added them here. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:02, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, didn't get what you were trying to say by "Do you mean something like {{Infobox deity}}?". Can you please clarify? Further, father and mother have already been included in person, royalty, officeholder, religious biography, deity, etc. I don't get it why you are opposing it. Don't take it wrong way, but it is now seeming to be arrogant. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 08:15, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

You said I will invite you to visit the pages of hundreds of characters of Hindu mythology which have a father and a mother. ... if you are facing so much of issue in adding such a minor field, it would be good to create another infobox, like Infobox Hindu character. Infobox deity fits those requirements already, with the instructions saying "The template can be used for any mythological figure."

"I don't get it why you are opposing it." - I've already explained why in an earlier post. When creating content for articles using person, royalty, officeholder, religious biography, deity, etc, the subject's parents are usually known at the time the article is created, so they can be populated properly using the mother and father fields at the time the infobox is added. This is more often than not, not the case with fictional characters. Siblings are often known before the details of the parents are revealed, so the mother and father fields are unlikely to ever be used, or used only for a short time. And, of course, there is the necessity to move data from one field to another when use of mother and father is no longer appropriate, which is really unnecessary complexity. These fields only negate the need to learn how to use line breaks or {{Plainlist}} so they're not very high value fields and seem to be just fields for the sake of having extra fields. They're also likely to cause confusion amongst inexperienced editors who will wonder why the mother or father field is not displaying. You should note that I didn't initially oppose inclusion, but changes to templates used in thousands of articles (in this case over 5,000) should be discussed. However, after looking at this more and more I find little value in these fields and when I'm unjustly accused of arrogance just because I'm doing due diligence, I'm less inclined to change my position. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:45, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 5 March 2016

Please apply the "nowrap" directive to labels ending in "(s)" to prevent them wrapping awkwardly in certain browsers. For example, to prevent "nickname(s)" appearing like this:

nickname

(s)

86.152.161.64 (talk) 18:46, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

 Done Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 23:03, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! 86.152.161.107 (talk) 03:11, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

"Last appearance" in the infobox

What is the purpose of this parameter? These are fictional characters so nothing (not even death!) means they will never be seen again. Fictional characters come back from the dead all the time! Sometimes, they end up never having even been dead... it was all just another character's dream! Unlike a first appearance (which can only happen once), a character's last appearance can change at anytime for any reason without warning for all eternity! Not only is having this parameter not encyclopedic in the least, it creates a lot (like... a LOT) of confusion, leading to continuous errors, even when sources confirm a dead character is not done on a show.Cebr1979 (talk) 03:07, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

If the series the character is in is over, then that shows range of episodes that character appeared in. Characters may be resurrectable, but series seldom are. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:51, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

No, that doesn't make any sense at all. First, I'm talking about characters, not series, and... Second: Really? In a world with Dallas, Fuller House, 90210, The Degrassi franchise, and the list goes on and on... you're saying "series seldom are?" Michael Scofield died in Prison Break (another series to be resurrected) yet, will be reappearing in the sequel series soon enough.Cebr1979 (talk) 04:14, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Even if a series is cancelled and not brought back, that doesn't mean the end of a character! Another World was canceled with Cass Winthrop still making appearances on As the World Turns and Guiding Light. Sophia Petrillo went from The Golden Girls to the The Golden Palace to Empty Nest.Cebr1979 (talk) 04:19, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

"Last" and really "First" appearances are really irrelevant. Either they say "pilot" and "finale", or they say episode titles that mean very little when just reading them. IT's not like a comic book first appearance where you site an issue number and maybe a date. They both should be probably removed, because they don't really provide essential information to a reader.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:57, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

No... First appearances are important. It's good to know when a character debuted (were they original to the series or not, for example). The episode name probably should be followed by a date, though, like in comics. All people (real or fictional) have a debut, so of course we should note it. A "last appearance," though? Zack Morris' last appearance is listed as "Goodbye Bayside Part 2" (Saved by the Bell: The New Class)" however, Mark-Paul Gosselaar appeared as the character on Late Night with Jimmy Fallon in 2009 and again in 2015 on The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon. Were either appearance "in continuity" as far as the character's "fictional universe" goes? Who cares? "The character of Zack Morris" appeared in 2015... that should be his "last appearance" at this point, right? My point is: A "first appearance" can't change. A "last appearance?" There's just no such thing!Cebr1979 (talk) 07:11, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I also agree that "Last appearance" should be removed. I think we had it removed. Why is is back? -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:15, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Last appearance makes no sense. Characters may appear as ghosts, as flashbacks, as plot twists, etc, etc. There are many ways characters appear and re-appear. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:44, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I think some people are looking at this from a very narrow perspective. "First appearance" is obviously the first time that a character appears so "Last appearance" is obviously the .... yes, that's right ... the last time that a character appears. If a character dies in say, episode 20 of season 3 of a TV series then that's when they last appeared. If they subsequently reappear as a ghost in episode 5 of season 12, then the field is either updated, or it's noted in the prose. Remember, not everything needs to go in the infobox. If a character dies, and then reappears (for whatever reason) even semi-regularly, this should be in the infobox, but if it's only a one-off instance then it should probably only be noted in the prose. (If the character is semi-regularly reappearing the field should be empty until they're really, really gone!) Note that the infobox contains the parameter series, and all content in the infobox should be related to that series. If the character appears in the the series, that's what should be in the infobox. If the character is then reprised for a non-series event, say for an episode with Jimmy Fallon, then that shouldn't be in the infobox, because it's not part of the actual series. Instead mention of it should be made in the prose. Mr. Moseby was a main character in The Suite Life of Zack & Cody and The Suite Life on Deck. For him, his first appearance was "Hotel Hangout", the first episode of The Suite Life of Zack & Cody and his last was "Graduation on Deck", the finale of The Suite Life on Deck. He later reprised the role in an episode of Jessie four years later, but this was a one-off event and so shouldn't be in the infobox, just noted in the prose. It's true that some editors just list the name of the episodes, which is really pretty useless. What they should be doing is including a link back to the actual episode entry or article, as I've done in the two examples I've presented.

The problem I see is not one of a lack of purpose, it's actually twofold: a lack of specific documentation, and fields that don't meet our requirements. The infobox really needs additional parameters, perhaps first_link and last_link which, together with first and last would form a wikilink to the appropriate article entry. Additional series parameters (series_2, series_3, series_4) are needed for many characters who appear in multiple works. I haven't looked at the rest of the infobox but it may need others, and it definitely needs better instructions. Infoboxes are not like most things today. You don't need to throw things away when they don't work. They can be fixed. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:08, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

"He later reprised the role in an episode of Jessie four years later, but this was a one-off event and so shouldn't be in the infobox, just noted in the prose."

I'm afraid you're looking at this from a very incorrect perspective. If he appeared in an episode of Jessie, than that is the character's last appearance. If we're going to have a last appearance parameter, it needs to be accurate not just what you decide counts and what doesn't.Cebr1979 (talk) 01:57, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

you're looking at this from a very incorrect perspective - In your opinion. As I have pointed out, there is a series series parameter that links the infobox to a particular series, so all information really needs to be linked to the character as it relates to the series listed in series. Notable, out of series appearances should be mentioned in the prose and there is really no need to list them in the infobox because it just confuses readers. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:23, 8 March 2016 (UTC)7

In your opinion. However, if we're going to have a last appearance parameter, it needs to be accurate not just what you decide counts and what doesn't.Cebr1979 (talk) 11:07, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that's why I said "I think some people", not just "Some people", and I certainly didn't then add "very", just to assert an opion as fact.[2] --AussieLegend (✉) 13:26, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

If the character appears in multiple media afterwards, it can be left blank. As with the age parameter, just because it's there doesn't mean it has to be filled in. Some characters like Mickey Mouse will probably never have it filled. Or it can be regularly updated if it's certain the character will stop appearing for a while. Note appearing = participates in the episode, as with BLP. Video footage from a recap/flashback episode does not count if it does not provide new content. Reprisals count. Parodies, no, unless it's a self-parody. As with sports players, if they retire and announce a come back then they are active, but until they participate as a player in an actual game, their last game played is still the last game played. AussieLegend makes a good point about keeping it in-series though as most of the these other guest appearances would fit in "Appearances in other media". AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:40, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

How does Wikipedia handle analogous situations elsewhere?

• For a writer of books published from earliest 1960 to latest 1990, do we use {{infobox writer|period}} "1960–present" while the person is alive, until 2015 for instance, and then "1960–1990"? (Per the linked documentation "period Dates from first publication to last publication.")
• Professional athletes in North American team sports are commonly said to be "retired" when they are no longer active in the major leagues. When do the WP sports player infoboxes assign last appearances to them? (One baseball example, pitcher David Price (baseball), shows that WP Baseball does not routinely state last appearances between seasons. Offhand I have no example of someone who has missed a year or two at the major league level, by analogy to the writer of nothing published since 1990.)

--P64 (talk) 19:23, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't get the comparison here? If a person is alive... they will eventually die... and that will be final. Fictional characters are not alive and, thus, can't really die... even a fictional death isn't final (not even close)... they can still (and do) return at anytime, anywhere, without warning or notice! Fictional characters are immortal! Look at Thor or Romeo and Juliet!Cebr1979 (talk) 06:56, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I recall that when I was watching Lost TV series a character "died" and he appeared in flashbacks or as ghost in dreams. What would we count as this character's "last appearance"? -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:01, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes. That's my whole point. There's no such thing as a "last appearance" for a fictional character. Every time we say otherwise, we're lying. If we're gonna have this parameter, it needs to be changed to "Most recent appearance" which is even more weird.Cebr1979 (talk) 05:21, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

I answered this a week ago.[3] --AussieLegend (✉) 15:36, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Imagemap support

Either this template or the module that displays the image needs to be updated to support "imagemap", per the example at The Doctor (Doctor Who) to remove any extraneous markup. There is only one image used (File:Versions of the Doctor.jpg), but multiple different links over the one image. Alex|The|Whovian^? 05:33, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Do we really need to do that to support a single, non-standard use that includes what appears to be an derivative work violating WP:NFCC#3a? This infobox, like most others, relies on Module:InfoboxImage, which is used in over 2.77 million articles. You'd need to discuss your proposal at that module's talk page. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:24, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, we really do, but I'll take it over there. Alex|The|Whovian^? 22:40, 12 March 2016 (UTC)