Template talk:Infobox character

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Template-protected edit request on 21 November 2016[edit]

The tracking category for deprecated categories Category:Articles using Infobox character with deprecated parameters is now empty. Since the listed parameters are no longer supported and the category is now empty, the section adding pages to the tracking category can be removed. Please remove:

{{Main other|{{#if:{{{1|}}}{{{affiliations|}}}{{{age|}}}{{{birth_name|}}}{{{birthname|}}}{{{born|}}}{{{callsign|}}}{{{cause|}}}{{{death|}}}{{{died|}}}{{{episode|}}}{{{eyes|}}}{{{eye color|}}}{{{hair|}}}{{{hair color|}}}{{{haircolor|}}}{{{hair_color|}}}{{{height|}}}{{{imdb_id|}}}{{{residence|}}}{{{specialty|}}}{{{status|}}}{{{weight|}}}
|[[Category:Articles using Infobox character with deprecated parameters]]
}}

Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 01:58, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Not done Future transclusions of the template may still include deprecated parameters, and hence the category is still required. Alex|The|Whovian? 02:01, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
@AlexTheWhovian: thanks for the note but I'm wondering if you can go into a bit more detail here. If the Template doesn't support the parameters, the sample code in the documentation doesn't support the parameters AND there are no existing occurrences that support the parameters, where is the concern? Seems that this is more of a case of someone adding a made up parameter to a template. So like if I tried to add {{{favorite food}}} to {{Infobox actor}} I think you would agree there is no need to track that... I realize that is a silly example, but I mean it genuinely. You clearly have a use case in mind that I have not considered. Would love it if you could help fill me in and enlighten me. Thanks a bunch!! --Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 02:20, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
The proper order of steps is:
  1. Implement checking for unsupported parameters using Module:Check for unknown parameters. (Do this first, because it takes a while to populate unless you want to null-edit all articles transcluding the template.)
  2. Fix all uses of deprecated parameters.
  3. Remove all deprecated parameters from the template code.
  4. Remove all deprecated parameters from the check for unknown parameters. That will make any future uses of previously deprecated parameters appear in the "unsupported parameter" category.
I don't know which, if any, of these steps has been done yet, but that's an order that should work. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:10, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
I have done the first step above. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:18, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
@Jonesey95: yea you hit the nail on the head. There are no remaining instances of the deprecated params being used so step 2 is already done. Just need to do 3 & 4 which I will do now! --Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 07:35, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
And if deprecated parameters are used in the future and editors don't take note of the preview? The tracking code should be kept and the tracking category recreated. Alex|The|Whovian? 08:05, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
@AlexTheWhovian: so if someone ignores the documentation, ignores all other transclusions of the template and just inserts random parameters into the template... That is the ENTIRE POINT of having the unknown parameters tracking... --Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 08:15, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Yes, quite, that's what happens a lot of the time. I'm following several unknown parameter checking categories that have articles added each day. Alex|The|Whovian? 08:16, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Not seeing what your point is.... Those parameters were not even used in the template. The only thing they did was add the page to a deprecation category. So now the page gets added to an unknown param category.... --Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 08:22, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
The unknown parameter category, which was not part of the template before, takes care of any unsupported parameters, including the ten or so that had been listed as deprecated. This means that editors who make typos or other innocent errors will put a page in the category, whereas before, the error would have been ignored silently. As you can see from Category:Pages using infobox character with unknown parameters, there were a lot of errors being ignored silently before the unknown parameter tracking was added. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:33, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Gotchya. Alex|The|Whovian? 23:46, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

The relationships parameter and documentation[edit]

I have been fixing up the Rory Gilmore article for my mom who was reading the article and saw it broken. While restoring it to a previous state and trying to update it with what a user was trying to add, I found out that there were three parameters with issues. While the other two were minor things, the template was calling a parameter called Relationships that existed in the template documentation until this edit. Despite this, I could not figure out what was wrong until I looked at the source and found that this parameter does not seem to exist. Apparently, that was added by mistake. (Special:Diff/161159503) As the user in question seems to not be very active anymore, I have declined asking them at the current time. I have currently fixed that article with respect to making two of the parameters that were not working visible and fixed the documentation by taking that out and two other parameters that do not seem to exist, but I would like to request if someone would be willing to give things a look over to make sure that nothing is missing or broken due to not usually editing documentation. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:49, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Suggestion in changing 'species' parameter to 'animal'[edit]

Most of the time, such as with Pepe the Frog, and Mickey Mouse, the type of animal is not specific to a single species, since frogs & mice arent technically a species. I suggest changing the parameter to 'animal' to be technically correct. —SpanishSnake (talkcontribs) 16:58, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Yet "animal" is not the proper descriptor for Admiral Ackbar (a Mon Calamari) nor Buzz Lightyear (a toy). I'm not arguing that "species" is the correct parameter name. Something even broader would be appropriate, maybe… "classification"? — fourthords | =Λ= | 18:05, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, this parameter is frequently used for aliens, so 'animal' would not work there.— TAnthonyTalk 18:08, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

What about to adapt this template to get data from Wikidata?[edit]

I'm interested in the improvement of this template to recover data from the Wikidata to have it prepared to show more useful information about the character pages that use this template.

For example, have a look at this page ( https://ca.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigurd ) and compare the (complete) infobox shown with the equivalent if you insert an "Infobox character" template in the english version of the page.

How can I help to do this improvement? — Jaume.SauraB (talk) 23:23, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Fictional predecessor/successor in infoboxes?[edit]

How does the community feel about the recent addition (by a relatively new editor) of predecessor/successor fields in the infoboxes of Game of Thrones/A Song of Ice and Fire characters [1][2][3][4][5], using the customizable fields? The data represents other characters who preceded/succeeded the subjects of the articles in fictional positions. I personally think this is trivia of the sort we have removed from other fictional character articles in other franchises.— TAnthonyTalk 02:22, 14 September 2018 (UTC)