Template talk:Infobox character/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

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.~ZytheTalk 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.~ZytheTalk 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)

{{uninvolved|close|determine outcome of discussion}} 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.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 tc 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 tc 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 above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Removal of last

Shouldn't wikiprojects that would be affected by this discussion of been notified of it's existence? I knew nothing about it until the field was actually removed. I think it should of been kept, alot of characters do have definite last dates and these dates can be verified. Could it not be made optional? If there is a definite first appearance then there can be a definite last appearance. If we remove last then why not first? If the problem is that the character might reappear then the field could be edited but if the character has left the series for now then the last appearance date field should be filled in. D4nnyw14 (talk) 21:21, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Most, if not all, of the character articles affected are for characters in a form of serial fiction. This type of fiction employs "soap opera" or "comic book death" as a fairly common trope. Having "Last appearance", even couched with "Use only when the character has been killed of or removed from the series for good", creates a point of speculation and argument, and that's just from the "they may be back" issue. Then there are re-makes/re-vamps/re-imagings that start a series over in a slightly different setting where the "dead" are back but not really back. And out of sequence installments of a series in the same or different media set before a character "left".
Yes, these are things that can be put foward in the text of the article. But they need at least some explanation and context. That is something the infobox isn't really designed for.
- J Greb (talk) 22:05, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
But if these re-makes/re-vamps/re-imagings are made then the last appearance could be removed. If an out of sequence installment is made then the last appearance would be changed to that out of sequence installment if it is new footage. There are a lot of cases in tv series were it is announced the character has left the series or the actor has left. D4nnyw14 (talk) 22:46, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
The idea of "last" is too ambiguous. Does it mean the last time they appeared, their "death", just the most recent appearance? It could mean different things for different people. If it's the most recent appearance then you're changing it constantly. Since fictional characters cannot "die", because they are fictional, then it cannot mean their "death". As for their "final" appearance, there is no such thing as a "final" appearance for a lot of genres, thanks to that lovely addition of retcons, flashbacks, and change of mediums (e.g., Buffy Season Eight - which is a comic book). There's so much that affects it, it's not as stagnant as "first". That's why it was removed. As for notification, I believe that the major projects were notified.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:00, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
Slightly on the subject - since the parameter's been removed, surely it should be removed from the template's documentation too? Otherwise you're going to see a lot of instances of it being filled out in articles copying the template from its docs, filling it out, and not noticing the one parameter which didn't display. Causes a bit of confusion needlessly, really. GRAPPLE X 03:49, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
I'd go with commented out for the moment - it wasn't pulled so much as hidden. And I'm thinking it may be worth running a tracking cat to see how many of the articles have it in use currently. - J Greb (talk) 03:57, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't "final asppearance never again will this chaarcter EVER come back EVER again" - just "last", which was last apperead to date... It was a jump to think that readers would think off auto that the character couldn't possibly appear again. I'd assume they know anything is possible if they are familiar with the word fiction. I've seen so many problem fields in these infoboxes - but never once did I think, for one nano second that this particular one was a problem. Can I just add, seeing some comments about last app dates and soap opera characters. Cut the generalisations out please - updating daily? If a character left in one episode and returned another - I doubt they would have left the series... that comes when we have rela world sources to support the actor went their own way, character left the series - providing a solid last app. I really do not see what is so tiresome about updating the filed anyway... such as life with ongoing serials - the subject matter keeps evolving - if we really are that interested in updating them - we can spare like three second? maybe ten? ... writing their last app date... I've wrote a reply in relation to some comments, from a much earlier date - but this wasn't highly advertised tbh - so only just noticed it when I nearly bashed my head on my desk because the last appearance date would not show up. I thought "What am I doing wrong with this infobox layout??? 0_o" ... lolRaintheOne BAM 04:40, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Then again, you're running into the issue of having to update that field every week. That defeats the idea of an infobox that is summarizing main points about a character when it has to constantly update. Again, "most recent" is not even essential because you have no context. We automatically understand the context of "first", but with "last" we don't know if the character has left the show or if we're just waiting till next week to get an updated listing of his/her most "recent" appearance. The reader doesn't suffer without it there. Either way, we've already had this discussion (see above), and many times before this "most recent" (see archives). There's no point of rehashing it all over again when it just ended. People were notified of the discussion. If you didn't get that notification then I apologize, but main projects (Project TV, Project Film, etc.) should have been notified.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:07, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
Are most of these TV series edited by people who follow the shows? I'd imagine they would update them often - I know with Soaps no one waits one week - they update straight away. If a character is departing a series, it is documented before hand is the series is notable - so when reading the article the clarification comes in when the general reader discovers that the last - is last because Actor X has left the series. Infobox fields aren't meant to tell the whole story, as they feature in the lead where the main points are listed in a concise manner - sometimes making the reader want to carry on down to the main body. I do agree that the reader wouldn't suffer without it there, assuming they do not think on auto the character is still appearing in the series because is says first appeared without last appeared.RaintheOne BAM 14:36, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
You wouldn't need to update the field every week just after the character has left the series which can be sourced for most departures. As for wikiprojects being notified where was this? I've just quickly scanned the wikiproject talk pages archive for september around when the discussion was opened and i can't see any sort of notification about this discussion. I think this discussion could have been conducted properly especially with it effecting so many different pages. D4nnyw14 (talk) 13:16, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── My mistake, I thought it was. Feel free to restart it and notify all of the WikiProjects you like. Be sure to include Film and Novel. :D  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:08, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Should we add it back in then i could re open the discussion and notify all wikiprojects involved. D4nnyw14 (talk) 14:39, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Personally, I'd just leave it as it is. You're challenging the level of consensus, but a consensus was still made. If a wider discussion yields a different consensus then it's just as easy to fix. If it doesn't, then people will already be getting used to the change. Plus, it isn't removed completely, just hidden from view. People being able to see it shouldn't alter an opinion about its inclusion one way or the other.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:46, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Discussion about the removal of the last field

I've opened this discussion because the field was removed without several wikiprojects who would be affected by the changes being notified. I don't agree with the changes which were made as the last appearance date is subject to change although if that happens the field could be updated. D4nnyw14 (talk) 23:28, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

See my previous points above. I have taken part in this discussion too many times. I am all for removing it, because there really is no such thing as a "last" appearance. In today's world, many shows are jumping mediums and transitioning between film, TV, and books all with the same character. As such, it's an arbitrary category that becomes too flip-floppy when compared to the other categories. It's one of the only cats that would actually have regular changes to it in the infobox, which indicates instability. It's a needless category, that does not really hold any value given the lack of context that goes with it (i.e., "why was this the 'last' appearance?").  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:40, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
(Warning: My argument may have some undue weight towards infobox for TV characters, but that's only because I'm not really familiar with its other uses) Here's one thing I don't get: If the "First" field unambiguously refers to a character's first chronological appearance on a TV show, movie, book, etc., then why would there be ambiguity with the "Last" field? To me, it's always signified the character's final chronological appearance, regardless of the circumstances that caused it, whether that be because of the death or departure of the actor and/or character or the cancellation of a series. Yes, I realize that the possibility the character will return does exist, but not acknowledging the last appearance because of that seems not only speculative to me, but also extremely unhelpful in cases where a character is unlikely to return, like characters on shows that ended a long time ago, because of the additional ambiguity it ends up creating. --Davejohnsan (talk) 00:38, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
The long and short of it?
"First appearance" is easily nailed down to the first episode/book/issue/film/etc that reader/viewer is presented with a character. It does not have to be the character's earliest chronological appearance - a term that term that is routinely applied to the earliest point of a character's in-story time line that is included in a story - though in most cases the two coincide. They also do not change.
"Last appearance" is not that easy. The only places where they can be locked down are single works - where it is a little pointless - or "closed" series - those that are done and for whatever reason are not open to new episodes or translation into other media. The rest all have the potential for "new" appearances of the characters, regardless of how they leave. This can be anything from flashbacks to faked deaths to "special" appearances in later stories. This makes the characteristic "last appearance" both a moving target and a confrontational one depending on the editors attracted to the article set.
- J Greb (talk) 01:15, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
It's ambiguous because of the lack of context. If you're looking at the page, you don't know if the "last" appearance is referring to the "final" appearance or the "most recent" appearance. It lacks context. The "first" appearance is pretty straight forward. How it is unhelpful to not say there is a "last" appearance in an infobox? The storyline section should detail a character's departure with context.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:16, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Addenda:
  • Speculation runs both ways: assuming that a death scene or an actor leaving a show is the "end" of a character's appearances can be as bad or worse. Not stating anything in the infobox and leaving it solely up to being covered in the body of the article is preferable. The article has the room to explain it where the infobox doesn't.
  • "...shows that ended long ago." is shaky ground. As Bignole has pointed out TV shows have see survival beyond cancellation in many forms and that isn't limited to those shows that transitioned during or just after their run but those that have been licensed years or decades later.
- J Greb (talk) 01:27, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Then why not clarify the ambiguity by changing "Last appearance" to "Final appearance"? Or better yet, why not let WikiProjects task forces with their own character infoboxes decide what to do with the last appearance field? I honestly feel this change is more detrimental than helpful to the {{Infobox Law and Order character}}; is there any way this change can be made not to affect the L&O characters? --Davejohnsan (talk) 01:31, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
How does this impact "L&O" more so than any other topic? Better yet, how does it impact it so detrimentally in the first place?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:37, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Admittedly, I should have used a different word than "detrimental", but let's just forget about that and return to my first question for a second. Could the ambiguity be clarified by changing "Last appearance" to "Final appearance"? By the way, it was not my intention to place any undue emphasis on Law & Order specifically; it was just an example I had. Sorry for the confusion. --Davejohnsan (talk) 03:18, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Changing it to "Final appearance" insinuates that they are not going to appear again, and fictional characters can appear in any medium. Even "Law & Order" characters appear in other mediums, like novellas.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:48, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
This reason is flipsided because you could say we are insinuating that the character will appear again, while that is a fair thing to do because they character could return, it feels like we would be misinforming the vast bulk of readers - have had a first and a last. Well just update the last appeared date, whether they appear again or not should not affect the field. It is a long jump to assume everyone who sees a last appearance date will also assume the character is gone forever. As I said earlier, it is just the date thast they last appeared.. I'm a little worried that other projects weren't correctly notified either. So I can 100 percent understand why it is being discussed again.RaintheOne BAM 04:30, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)
FWIW
  • "Final" might alleviate the concern about well meaning editors updating articles as new installments of serial fiction come out. But it does feel misleading or incomplete.
  • I can see the argument about "final" appearances though in connection with television. At the end of a season without news of renewal or with the departure of an actor - by quitting, termination, death, or what ever - there are episodes that at the time are "final appearances". Some genres - soaps for example - have a healthy skepticism built in due to the various way "dead" or "long gone" characters have been brought back. But that isn't "all".
  • For me, on a broad base template, it is better to err on the side of less. Less in this case is to not have a field that is to broad or has to have a strongly worded, long definition of what it is. "Final/Last appearance" falls into that area.
  • As far as work groups/taskforces and other WikiProjects. As pointed out before Comics and Video Games have their own templates, as do G.I. Joe, Doctor Who, James Bond, Simpsons, CSI, and Star Trek among others. And some, such as Buffyverse, use pass through templates to access this one. This also includes Law & Order, Star Wars, and others.
    Looking over all of it, I have little problem with a work group or WikiProject deciding that they need uniformity wuthin this base template and creating a pass through template. I also don't have a problem with them deciding they need to do something that this template won't support. It happens. But that option should not hamper attempts to stream line this template.
- J Greb (talk) 04:53, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Boldly reverted

I've put the last= back in. Going over this discussion, I see nothing but ramblings about TV series. This template is used in all media, not just TV. I stumbled upon articles about movies for example, where specualtion is not an issue, and this template should not restrict this type of information. If speculation is an issue, just edit the article to remove the speculation and inform the editor about verifiability; do not abuse templates to force out certain types of information that may cater to speculation, as that is detrimental to other cases where there is no speculation. Thank you. Edokter (talk) — 11:28, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

While you may have reviewed everything, the talk page post does not indicate that nor does not take into consideration the wider community consensus that we do try to minimize fields that are magnets for original research. Finally, I'd say that this does not just apply to episodes. It applies to comics, novel series, etc. Stand-alone works shouldn't have a first/last to begin with since they would be the same.Jinnai 20:24, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
If mentioning the last appearance is that integral, then clearly it belongs in the Lead, no? I think putting it back in is a mistake.Zythe (talk) 22:32, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
If this type of information should not be in the infobox, then I suggest a wider consensus is needed (e.g. at [[WT:FICTION]) before removing it from the template. This discussion only revolved around TV, which is only a small subset of the various media articles that utilize this template. It's removal had impact way beyond then what was discussed. Templates are never a good venue to discuss these matters, let alone enforcing them. Get a wider consensus first, one that involves all fiction-related projects. Edokter (talk) — 23:40, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
I honestly can't see what the projects for film, poetry, or stories told in pottery for that matter, can add to the relatively simple-to-grasp distinction between the impossibility of an unqualified 'end' for a fictional character and the absolute certainty of its beginning. This doesn't vary by medium.Zythe (talk) 22:42, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

First appearance question

Let's say a fictional character is generally said to have first appeared in a film, but a children's book, comic book adaptation or tie-in book gets released earlier by weeks or months. Doesn't it mean that little kid's book is technically their "first" appearance in fiction, even if it's only purpose was as a tie-in to the movie they are known for? Mathewignash (talk) 01:31, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

That's a good question. What character are we talking about here?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:47, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Could be a number of characters from Luke Skywalker to Ultra Magnus. Often book tie ins come out earlier. Mathewignash (talk) 05:56, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Hmmm...I don't know. Part of me wants to say that you have to look at the situation. I mean, if you're looking at the letter of the law then I would say "yes", the tie-ins would be first. But, to me, I might look at it like the film was conceived and created first, but the tie-in novel just happened to get released earlier. I might, as far as the infobox goes, list the film but in an "Appearances" section explain how the tie-in book/comic/etc. received an earlier release date.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 06:56, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
John Connor is the example that comes to mind personally, though he was clearly an 'unseen character' in T1. When it's contentious, explain the technicality in the prose, but leave the infobox clean (even if that means omission).Zythe (talk) 01:04, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Spin off?

Is there a field for spin offs?!? MayhemMario 22:01, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

No there isn't. I'm not sure I see where one would be needed.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:05, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
There are customisable fields you can use for these things, if you want to add information like that. GRAPPLE X 22:18, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

"Parents" field?

I there any chance we could have a "parents" field at all please, like the one you get in the general Person Infobox? I'm hoping to add this one to various Welsh mythology characters, and see that the Greek, Germanic and Norse ones all have a "parents" field (as well as one for "siblings") - thanks (193.61.220.13 (talk) 13:17, 23 January 2012 (UTC))

It's not a widely needed field. I would suggest using the optional fields that you can fill in by hand for it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:27, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
And I'm a little leery of putting characters from myth into this 'box. It just desn't seem right.
- J Greb (talk) 00:28, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
There would be more support here I bet for the opposite - collapsing all those different relations into 1 field.Jinnai 00:29, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
I actually thought that we decided to do just that, and create a basic "Relationship" (or something similar) field.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:36, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies to my request – my way of thinking was it would just make this infobox consistent with so many others. I'm afraid I don't quite understand why the personal details section of all infoboxes that deal with persons (whether they be real, fictional or mythological) shouldn't all be more or less the same? Personally I can't see anything wrong with adding parents into a separate field when it comes to mythological characters, after all you already have separate ones for "Children" and "Spouse(s)" (as well as ones for "Family" and "Relatives"), and it seems to work with Greek mythological figures like Zeus, who has one for his "Parents". If there was a separate one for parents, then surely it would be up to the person uploading the information as to whether or not they actually used this field, but at least they would have the option. As I say, I'd have thought it would be better for everyone if there was some consistency across all the different kinds of person infoboxes in this respect, at least when it comes to basic information on an individual. At the end of the day I'm only a casual contributor to Wikipedia so it's up to you what you decide - anyway, no worries just I thought I'd ask.(193.61.220.13 (talk) 12:55, 24 January 2012 (UTC))

Except, there has been great discussion about changing all of those fields into a single entity. Per WP:WAF, infobox info should be essential to understanding the character, and additionally not treat fictional characters as if they were real. So, if I'm listing people purely because they are related, but most readers don't even know who those characters are and how they make the primary character they are reading about more understandable, then they probably don't need to be listed in the infobox to begin with. Obviously, if I was reading about Hercules, and I saw Zeus lists as "Father" I would understand that he is also either a God or a Demigod because most people know who Zeus is in Greek mythology. That's why I say, use the optional fields. We're trying to get away from creating standard fields for every minor aspect because what we run into are people who want to fill in every single one of those fields when they visit an article simply because those fields exist, and not because they help better understand a character (e.g., filling in "Male" for gender when there is clearly a picture of a man in the infobox).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:22, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks for the further reply. To be honest I'm coming at this from being more of a user than a creator of things on Wikipedia, which is why I just thought it would make sense to have consistency between all the different person infoboxes when it came to this and similar fields. I can understand your point about the subject not being a real person, and the possible irrelevance to their characterisation by giving links to other fictional/mythological characters in an infobox. However for me having a parents field just seems a logical way of breaking things up, simply because people are going to add this kind of thing anyway even if it isn't viewed as good practice. I have to say that having such links to other characters in the infobox does make jumping between them much easier than going through all the text of an article, and, as a user, I find it good to have a resume of such relationships, whether real or fictional, displayed in the infoxbox - but maybe that's just me? I was actually following existing examples that someone else had put up for a couple of Welsh mythological characters, and so was trying to improve upon what was already there and tidy it up a little. I have taken your advice and tried using the optional fields, as well as adding an extra heading, so thanks for this. (193.61.220.13 (talk) 15:22, 24 January 2012 (UTC))

I think that it is also easier for it be used in mythological articles like Greek and Roman mythology, which has a long established history (almost bordering on "reality" considering it was strictly believed for a good portion of humanity's history). I think the general infobox is used in a far greater scale among mediums like comics, novels, films, and tv that in those instances it is either irrelevant information or probably better suited in a general "Family/Relationships" type of field. For example, who Lana Lang's parents happen to be is probably irrelevant to the character because they are not important in the comics themselves. Now, maybe who Superman's parents happen to be would be, but it has been a battle in the past with the expansion of the infobox that some editors want to fill it out regardless. Then they edit war over it. THat has been why places like Soap Operas and Greek Mythology WikiProjects have expaned in their own infoboxes because those genres tend to rely a lot more on familiar relationships than most.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:50, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

"Gender" field

If I may piggyback a different question onto this one, since you mentioned it briefly: when is an appropriate time to use the "gender" field? Mostly when a picture is absent? Or when the first name is ambiguous or atypical? It seems to be used quite inconsistently in a number of pages. Zujua (talk) 07:57, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I would say that if there is no picture, AND the name is ambiguous, then that would be appropriate. Otherwise, it's probably best reserved for fantasy/sci-fi/etc. characters who are more "creature" than humans, and thus harder to show what the gender actually is. I think most of what we see right now are people just filling in the infobox fields.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 08:15, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I sort of figured as much, but thank you for confirming that. I think that it would be useful to give a quick explanation of that idea in the Parameters description table - do you think I should submit an admin edit request to add wording that echoes your thoughts here? Zujua (talk) 10:23, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
That should be fine. I was just checking if the field was still active, as we do not have it listed in the parameter definition section. I think putting in a formal request is appropriate.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:28, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
OK great, thanks. Submitted below. Please chime in if you think the wording could use any tweaks. Cheers, Zujua (talk) 07:53, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Image field not working

Any reason why the image field doesn't work on this template? I have no idea how templates are created here, but I would assume getting this to work would be as easy as changing the line:

|image        = {{{image<includeonly>|</includeonly>}}}

to:

| image      = {{#if:{{{image|}}}|[[File:{{{image}}}|{{px|{{{image size|{{{image_size|{{{imagesize|}}}}}}}}}|frameless}}|alt={{{alt|}}}]]}}

as in Template:Infobox person, where it's working fine. Or has this been turned off for a reason?TimofKingsland (talk) 08:05, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, I was used to infoboxes like {{Infobox settlement}}. Images obviously do work, just not without the syntax. And after learning a bit more about templates, I've realised it's not that simple to change. Nor would it be a good idea to change it now — new parameters would have to be added instead to keep current pages working.
Anyway, I've added use instructions into the parameters section of the documentation. Would be good to get an image in the example too, but I don't think the character Erick Karabell even existed. Maybe a real example would be better though anyway. — TimofKingsland (talk) 10:52, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 24 September 2012

In the parameters description table, I feel that it would be beneficial to have a description of the usage of the "gender" field, as I've seen it used quite inconsistently in a number of pages. I've discussed it with another editor (Template talk:Infobox character#"Gender" field), and we felt (if this does indeed describe this field's proper usage) that the description should probably read something to the effect of, "to be used when the gender of the character is not obvious from the name or image, particularly in the case of non-human science fiction characters".

Zujua (talk) 07:51, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Please feel free to edit the documentation page Template:Infobox character/doc which is not protected. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:23, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Latest appearance

At present there is only "first appearance" and "last appearance". Could somebody please add "latest appearance" for characters in ongoing series? I'm a bit hesitant to try it myself as I don't really know how templates work. Thanks. Opera hat (talk) 11:22, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, there is a movement to remove "last appearance". Fictional characters don't have "last" appearances because they are fictional and can come back whenever an author/creative person decides. With latest, although it's more accurate you're just changing something frequently if you're dealing with say a TV character or comic book character. It's also less essential to the character than the first appearance, which is something that introduces the character to the world.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:40, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

"Sex" not "gender"

An annoyed newbie changed the parameter on one character from "gender" to "sex" suggesting that "we" learn the difference between the two. Of course, it no longer displays at all! I am reluctant to change it back, since s/he is, of course, correct. Gender refers to language where "ils" in French is masculine gender, "elles" is feminine. The parameter should read "sex."

That is not the way the word "gender" is being used, and the edit should be reverted immediately, since it breaks the template. Where is it? Debresser (talk) 09:40, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
The template hasn't been edited since March and can only be edited by admins, but it currently uses "gender". Was the change made in an article, breaking the template on that page? If so, that can be reverted so at least it works, and then someone can edit the template here so that label17 is "Sex" but data17 is still "gender", so that all pages still display it. –anemoneprojectors– 12:46, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Is that field even needed? Usually the name, picture or description of the character conveys which sex they are. - JuneGloom Talk 15:46, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Gender might be appropriate in the rare case where you have an alien, or a non-humanoid, or a trans character. But as it is rare, and exceedingly uncommon in fiction that a gender should both be not obvious and also straightforwardly explicable in an infobox, I think we could omit the field altogether. It is one of those pernicious fields that editors like to fill in, when it's meant to be left blank in the vast majority of cases, not least because by assuming the sex/gender is worth noting it suggests something of a biographical existence to those characters whose gender isn't notable for creative reasons.Zythe (talk) 21:40, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
I have seen names that are absolutely unclear as to sex m/f. Descriptions all the more so: does the word "admiral" explain whether it is a man or a woman (see Honor Harrington, e.g.)? Pictures are often not available. Debresser (talk) 22:56, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps it should be removed then, if it's not needed in the vast majority of cases. If a character's sex needs to be clarified, it can be done in prose. I think the article would pretty quickly make use of the word "he" or "she". Using Honor Harrington as an example (ignoring the fact that Honor is a feminine name (at least I've never ever known it for a male)), the first line uses the word "heroine" rather than "hero", and the second paragraph says "She has a..." so it's kind of clear just from reading the lead section. –anemoneprojectors– 10:19, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm with anemone on this one. Would have to be an awfully short bio not to reveal the sex (with a pronoun). So short, that it usually wouldn't have an infobox! Student7 (talk) 22:02, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Optional Plural headers

It could be useful to make it possible to change the word "character" in the series field towards the top of the box to make it plural for instances were two similar characters share a page. In cases like this, as is already done here. Grapesoda22 (talk) 06:27, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Species

Parameter isn't defined in the documentation, which it probably should be. Should human characters have this parameter used, as at The Inspector? Thanks. DonIago (talk) 17:57, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

If the show only features humans, then no. If we're talking about something like Star Wars, Battlestar Gallatica, etc., then yes because there can be humanoid characters that are not actually human. But if I was reading a page on Ross Gellar, then it's obvious he is human.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:35, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
That works for my purposes. Thanks! DonIago (talk) 18:38, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Category:Articles using Infobox character with multiple unlabeled fields

I fail to see the use of this category. Would somebody explain it to me please. Or, alternatively, if others likewise don't see any use to this category, we could remove it. Debresser (talk) 21:17, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

It's from July 2010. So been there for a while now. Guessing it could probably go. -- WOSlinker (talk) 21:46, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
I now understand this category is here to see which labels are being used in addition to the regular ones, to see whether perhaps they should be added to the infobox. Well, perhaps somebody come to a conclusion, and then remove the category? I simply wouldn't know how to do this technically. Debresser (talk) 09:17, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Actually , this tracking category was added on 30 July 2010 in this edit, based on this discussion. I'll ask the editor who did this to comment here. Debresser (talk) 20:09, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Date of Birth Parameter and Age Parameter

Currently the only way to put these in is to use the data parameters, but having them at the bottom look silly, really it should be at the top and its own parameter.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 18:38, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

see this thread and related threads. Frietjes (talk) 18:54, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Frietjes, Ditto51 in fact if there is any "birth" date for fictional characters it should be removed since fictional items are not born but created. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:02, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 25 April 2014

Can the first appearance and last appearance parameters be made italic? Ollieinc (talk) 07:01, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Not a good idea. In the context of episodes for example, quotes are used instead of italics. Edokter (talk) — 09:53, 25 April 2014 (UTC)