Template talk:Supersupportingbox

Changes

I move that we make the changes we've talked about at Template talk:Superherobox and remove the status and relatives fields. --Chris Griswold 19:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remove --Chris Griswold 19:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - But more closely define (and watch) relatives, limit it to signifigant characters. Darquis 05:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove —Lesfer ^(talk/@) 16:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - And put it back in the Superbox. --Basique 14:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove - See below for discussion --Newt ΨΦ 21:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove - It's to hard to manage, and it gets ugly. --Silver lode 21:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove as per discussion below. Hueysheridan 22:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove - It's a tempting nuisance; it's either too complex or too inane in the vast majority of article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove - Hard to manage, often ugly or irrelevant, and too "current" for an encyclopedia. --Kusonaga 10:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove - We can put a Family section in the article and explain in detail if needed. It's too complicated -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 11:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove - It's more appropriate to be in the article, rather than the infobox.--Toffile 13:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep --Brian Boru is awesome 01:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Limiting to specific relatives would be very difficult (read: annoying) to police. The relatives field keeps the mindset amongst editors that we're not treating these characters as phenomena but rather living, breathing individuals. Though I like User:Postdlf's idea of treating the status variable as "Supporting character in two ongoing titles: <title 1> <title 2>", that suffers from the same difficulty that the relative field does, especially since the use is so widespread as "inactive" "active" "deceased" "depowered" "deaged" (which is usually not all that descriptive, treats the character as a real person, and takes the character out of perpetual present). I say do away with them both.
I disagree, and I honestly don't see that we'd be making them seem like "living" things anymore than listing their affiliations, names, aliases or anything else. How would this be more difficult to police than the article itself? Darquis 03:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because it's a fight over how the infobox should be used in every single article. It's been a challenge enforcing, for example, the image rules for {{Infobox VG}}, and those rules are much more clearcut and easy to explain. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Would establishing a standard of some level of signifigance and a maximum degree of relations (parents, siblings, children) help at all in this, do you think?Darquis 16:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]