Template talk:Infobox character

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

Template-protected edit request on 25 February 2016[edit]

I'm closing this due to a request at WP:ANRFC. There's a weak consensus against including mother/father parameters. The arguments regarding the creep of largely unused parameters are fairly convincing and received no rebuttal. No case was ever made as to why the |family= or |label2x=/|data2x= parameters were not suitable for including information about the mother and father. ~ RobTalk 04:17, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

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|}}}
| 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
) 20:39, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg 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
) 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
  • 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
) 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)
I was invited to comment: In a very particular order, this is an encyclopedia, then a technical minefield, then a bureaucracy. the Five Pillars serve as pretty much all the guidance we need in most situations where bureaucracy is in play, and technically, this proposal is a walk in the park. All we're left with is the building an encyclopedia.
Infoboxes are by their very definition boxes of condensed information, which in my mind should act as:
  1. TL;DRs
  2. Navigation widgets
It is my opinion that any info that contributes in either of these ways should be included.
However, as Sadads and AussieLegend point out, there are lines to be drawn; the current method of implementation of infoboxes through wiki-markup leaves a lot to be desired, and I look forward to a day where they're provided programmatically as bullet point summaries on every article. Without this degree of automation we have a duty to keep a lid on things for clarity, consistency and ease of use and understanding for all possible editors.
With great power comes great responsibility, and in this and similar cases, we must exercise caution to not pollute pages with needlessly bloated extras (no infobox should contain info that is not already properly and formerly stated in the article body).
With this in mind, I ask for a handful of example articles where the addition of these parameters would allow a measurable improvement in respect of the two listed (above) criteria, and where that measurable improvement could not be achieved with the current implementation. fredgandt 18:35, 2 April 2016 (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.

"Last appearance" in the infobox[edit]

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 (barksniff) 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)
I'm in agreement with AussieLegend here. anemoneprojectors 13:57, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I raged against this many years ago and thought we had a consensus that it was good to go. Can we chuck it now?Zythe (talk) 08:44, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Birth dates and places being added as "lbl#"[edit]

As previously discussed in many places including this template (here), birth and death details are not included in the infobox since fictional characters aren't born, etc. I just saw that Fox Mulder had "born" (for a "birth name") and "date of birth" (which also listed a "place of birth") in the infobox using the lbl2 and lbl3 parameters, so removed them. Should an instruction be added to the template documentation that these parameters should not be used to list "birth" and "death" details? AnemoneProjectors 12:12, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Anemone remove any of these on sight. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:18, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I also noticed that somoene revived bron/died parameter in Infobox star trek [4]. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:44, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Maybe we need some checks in the code to see if labels are "born", "date of birth" etc and rejects such uses. A comprehensive check to see what people are using the custom labels would probably be a good idea. That would allow us to create labels for commonly used custom labels and minimise the number of available blank labels accordingly. --AussieLegend () 07:59, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
I agree, AussieLegend, that would be a really good idea. Any idea how to do that? AnemoneProjectors 12:56, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
The first step is the easist. Category:Articles using Infobox character with multiple unlabeled fields lists 1,116 articles that use multiple custom fields. That's a scary number considering it's more than 20% of articles using this infobox. Use seems out of control. Identifying parameters worth adding to the infobox and those worth rejecting is going to require some effort. --AussieLegend () 15:05, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
That's a lot! We'll probably find that characters from the same shows use the same fields, for example, I looked at some 24 characters and they used "Days" (essentially for seasons, but wouldn't be used outside of 24) and "Other Appearances" which (with a lower case "a") would potentially be used for other series too. AnemoneProjectors 17:39, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
I found that as well. I think we need a subpage of this where we can progressively note this information in a sortable table and then, when we have a few candidates, we can add the parameters to the infobox and update the related articles using AWB. This is something we'll need to do over time as there are so many variables. There are some trivials out there too. Regarding date of birth, I actually think we should have a parameter for this, with a couple of aliases, that displays an error instead of the date, in order to get the message across. --AussieLegend () 05:42, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Is there some way of generating a list or must it all be done manually? You might have a good idea about the birthdate parameter. AnemoneProjectors 10:11, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Removed it from Star Trek characters. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:16, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Occupations in finales, specials or reunion episodes[edit]

Should character occupations in the infobox include what the character has done in a "X years later" finale or a reunion special? What if the character does not appear in the reunion but someone discusses what they've been up to? Or should it only pertain to their role in the series? Specifically List of The Facts of Life characters where for the most part, the girls are students in high school, then college, and it's only after the regular series has ended, that these additional careers are tacked on. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 19:50, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Only what happens while the series is airing should go in the infobox. What happens after the series ends can be mentioned in the prose, but it's not part of the series so it shouldn't be in the infobox. Like the lead, the infobox is a summary of an article's most important contents. An article talking about a character speaks in the context of that character within the series, so the important contents are those that relate to the series, not to non-series events. --AussieLegend () 09:18, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
What are you? Owner of this template? Who gave you the right to reject each and every edit proposal? I don't know what's proposed here, but I know for sure that you've rejected every edit proposal on this talk page. Seems like you are the owner of Wikipedia. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 10:03, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
@AngusWOOF No use wasting your time here. This editor won't let anything improve on this template ever. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 10:06, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Please be civil when communicating with other editors. I was simply responding to a request by another editor, basing my response on 9 years of experience editing TV articles, and at least I provided an opinion on the matter at hand. If your sole purpose for posting, not once but twice, is to attack another editor, then you should not post at all. --AussieLegend () 10:11, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
With your experience of eternity, can you please tell me just one edit requests that you din't opposed or let through? Since the time I've been watching this page, you jump in on every edit request, and just oppose for the sake of opposing. I also have a Wikipedia experience of few months. And haven't seen unedited thing, nor template, nor any page not even userpage except this highly moderated one. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 12:28, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
With your experience of eternity Here in the civilised world we have an old saying, you catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar. --AussieLegend () 15:07, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Civilization is in the eye of the beholder. Usually, it's something one claims one has but that another person doesn't. Liz Read! Talk! 22:36, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Okay, that rules out reunion specials as the series has clearly ended and their "where are they now" occupations can be detailed in their character sections. What about Epilogue scenes in the finale (e.g. "1 year later")? Same case? What if the character gets married or gets a job at the series finale? AngusWOOF (barksniff) 14:05, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I've seen this in many articles and it really comes down to weight. If a character has been a waitress for 100 episodes but gets a job as a stockbroker in the last 5 minutes, do we add |occupation=stockbroker? If we apply the principle of WP:WEIGHT, then no. It's something that we mention in the prose, but not in the infobox. --AussieLegend () 15:07, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

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)