Template talk:Infobox character/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Colours

i wonder if any wikipedians know anything about decent color choices

all these infoboxes have such ugly colors. 08:30, 10 July 2006 71.235.238.180 (Talk)

I have listend to your comments and believed optional colouring would be a good idea. It has been implemented (IE: | colour = #FFFFFF) Matthew Fenton (contribs) 17:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

In some other infoboxes, there are particular color-codes with specific meanings; is there any meaning to the colors used in this one, or is it just an aesthetic choice?

Yep I think it's purely aesthetic.--NeilEvans 23:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I've been adding infoboxes for Oz characters, and I wanted the color to be the color of whichever area of Oz that they come from, or a particular color for a particular place if they come from outside Oz. I logged on today, and they seem to have all been changed to an ugly yellow color, yet their coding still says whatever color I put, and no one seems to have gone in and changed them. --Scottandrewhutchins 15:45, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems that this field has been disabled by User:Wiikipedian. I am unsure why. G.A.S 19:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted the changes that disabled the color field, any change thereto should first be discussed. G.A.S 19:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Family

Is there some reason that both the "Family" and "Relatives" fields are necessary? They seem wholly redundant to me. Shannernanner 14:50, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd guess family = immediate family, and relatives ie. a cousin that is perhaps notable in the show. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 14:52, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

If it were clarified in "Usage" as such, that might perhaps make sense; currently, "Relatives" is listed as "Relatives who are important to the story," and "Family" as "Other family members not included below." Shannernanner 18:05, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Statistics?

The heading "Statistics" doesn't make much sense since there is little to do with statistics. How about renaming to "Information"? Cburnett 22:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Yea. Or perhaps characteristics? thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 22:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Information is probably better as that is what the sections is, information about the character.--NeilEvans 23:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead with "Information" because things like creator, portrayal, etc. aren't characteristics (species, gender, etc. would be though). I don't care if it gets changed again, it's just that there's 3-0 that statistics is not the word of choice. :) Cburnett 01:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Cause

I don't really like the Cause section of the infobox. It isn't always too clear what to put into this section. What do you think about changing this to Current Status like the 24 character infobox Template:Infobox 24 Character CaptainGetts 22:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't like the field, nor do I like the idea of "current status", seems to ambiguous to me and would probably be written prose. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 22:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Problems

I think there is a potential problem for creating a generic "character infobox". One, not every character is the same; a character in a film, or a comic book, is not always equivalent to someone in a television show. As this template just says "character" and not "television character", what is the point of saying "episode" when it could be used in a film? Also, per Wikipedia's writing about fiction, we shouldn't be treating these characters as if they are real. The sections "date of birth and death", or "age" are something that you attribute to a real person, not a fictional person. Being fictional relinquishes you of having any chance of ever "dying". The same with relatives. What is the importance of relatives to most characters? Are we creating a fictional family tree? Look at the select few character pages that have made it to Featured Article status, and compare infoboxes. Lastly, I think "creator" should be moved up higher, at least above all the people that portrayed the character. This is just my take on the box, though.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

First Appearance Required?

I'm new to infoboxes, but it looks like first is required --- see Frank Booth for an example of how the infobox looks when first isn't specified. For characters who are only in a single film, using first doesn't really make sense. Should first be changed to be not required or would that cause other problems? Or is this the wrong infobox to use for a character who appears in a single movie? Rickterp 12:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah it really should be changed to an optional parameter for characters like in the example you gave. I'm gonna let someone else deal with the changing of the code.--NeilEvans 18:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree, I don't see why "first" is required; I was tempted to change it but realized that perhaps there is a specific reason why it was done that way. Would anyone else like to weigh in on the issue? It may ultimately even require some kind of vote/consensus. TAnthony 05:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

First is what it says, first appearance in a play, novel, film, story; what ever. It does "not" imply they appear again, just that in history their first appearance is in that cultural event. It might be worth including something to indicate first "and only" but I don't really see too much value in that. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 10:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

So, you would say that the infobox for Frank Booth is working correctly now? To me, it looks strange, since this is the only movie his character appears in. Rickterp 11:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

An Idea! strikes me here, what if the template was coded so that if "last" also was loaded with the same value (i.e. Frank Booth) then only the one line is shown and the legend gives something like "Only appearance" instead. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 08:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Kevinalewis. It looks weird if a character's first and last appearance are the same, thus having it listed twice within the infobox. Kevinalewis' suggestion should be put into place, or please at least add the option of another line for "Appears in", like in the Doctor Who infobox. Ophois (talk) 00:50, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Spouse = Relationships??

The Spouse section renders Relationships. This wording may seem slightly confusing to some as Relationships can include co-workers, kin, dates, one-night stands, and current and past marriages/unions. Might it be possible to change Spouse to render Spouse(s) (to include both past and present marriages/unions) and make a new section for Relationships to include dates, one-night stands, and other friends??--JacenDS 15:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

This is indeed a problem; I've changed it back to "Spouse(s)" to match the parameter, and I will probably add a "Relationships" parameter. TAnthony 05:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Midbar

There seems little point having a bar saying "Information" . Can we remove that? Rich Farmbrough, 13:02 11 July 2007 (GMT).

I like the bar visually, but "Information" does seem stupid. maybe "Statistics" or something? The colored bars frame the photo section nicely, so it should stay in some form. TAnthony 05:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Box contradicts WAF

This template contradicts what WP:WAF says about using infoboxes for fictional characters. Mainly, WAF says only use in-universe information that is "essential to understanding the character", yet this template is riddled with almost nothing but.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I would argue that WP:WAF is a guideline, and this template's extensive use and wide acceptance in its current form (not to mention derivative templates) sets convention. For television characters in particular, who are usually long-running with complicated relationships, the infobox is an efficient way to establish notable information and avoid excessive lists. In fact I have recently started discussion in WP:SOAPS to expand the use of this template in daytime articles, which are often bogged down by such lists. And I think most of the information covered by this infobox is essential from the standpoint of understanding a character's place in a particular fictional universe. TAnthony 01:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Being a guideline does equate to "don't follow me". I believe the rule with guidelines are, follow them unless there is a good reason not to. Creating a template that has tons upon tons of in-universe information not essential to understanding the character is not a good enough reason to disgard a guideline that has been in place far longer than this template, which isn't even a guideline, but merely a template someone created. I've created templates myself. The problem is that all that "relationship" stuff doesn't help to understand the character because you don't know what that relationship entails be simply putting a notification in the infobox for it. DOB and DOD are entirely in-universe that have no meaning. When a fictional character dies is irrelevant, as the idea of them being fictional negates the fact that they could ever die, or be born for that matter. "Title", "Call sign" (i don't even know what this one is), "address"?? How do any of these help me understand a fictional character? Unless it is essential to understanding the character, then it shouldn't be there. Show me a character who, if their fictional address was not listed, I would be at a loss in understanding of who they are.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's policies and guidelines follow actual practice... not vice versa. If a guideline page says something which is not true in practice then the guideline page is wrong... not the thousands of pages it fails to reflect. While a few of the optional parameters added to this template due to its widespread use may be 'unnecessary', the template as a whole obviously serves a useful purpose in collecting basic information about fictional characters in one standardized location/format. As to what is and isn't 'essential'... I'd assume that 'Call sign', which is a term for the nicknames given to military pilots, is used for characters who are frequently identified by such a nickname rather than their actual name. That's fairly 'essential' information about the character. I think the individual Wikiprojects and topic communities can (and do) come up with their own ideas of what is and is not important for their subject. --CBD 10:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

As a further example, I tracked down the 'address' parameter you complained about above. It was added when the infobox for characters of Coronation Street was merged into this one. That's a television soap opera focusing on the lives of people on a particular street, which has been running in England since 1960. Apparently, they keep a definite number of houses and shops in the story and they've built the entire thing on a set to increase the verisimilitude. Thus the relevance of street address for that particular topic. --CBD 11:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

But the street number says nothing about the character in the show. It speaks of the show itself. But if I see "Address: 1567 Coronation Street" I have no idea what that means, of how that reflects on the character. It's trivial. Why have "Call sign" and "Aliases" then? It seems we are adding tons of fields that could be simplied under one name. And the "cause/reason" field, what does that entail? The cause for their leaving? They are not real, why is the template treating them as such. Part of WP:WAF is that we don't write fictional character articles as if they are biographies, but this template is creating instances that contradict that. BTW, if you have an FAC, part of that criteria is to satsify all policies, guidelines, MOSs, etc...but nothing about satisfying a template. Just because people choose to ignore a guideline does not make that guideline wrong. There are 2 million articles on Wikipedia, people cannot watch them all.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. I don't think this template or any of the uses of it noted violate that guideline. If they did then yes that would mean the guideline was wrong. It would not then be accurately describing how things are done. We have guidelines to describe standard practices. They do not over-ride standard practices. Regardless, in a show which is all about a street the street addresses are plainly relevant. In stories where characters are referred to by aliases those aliases are plainly relevant. The reason a character leaves a story seems like it would always be relevant. This is not, 'treating them as if they were real'... it is giving basic information about the characters as they relate to the story. Which is precisely what infoboxes are supposed to be used for. You apparently interpret the guideline very differently, but the reality is what it is... and whether that agrees with the guideline (as I think) or not really doesn't matter. --CBD 12:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but creating something that disregards a guideline, and then saying it's "standard" practice doesn't work. I don't use your "standard practice template", and I work on plenty of fictional character articles. The reason most are irrelevant, is because we are an encyclopedia here. We are about real world content, not in-universe information. How does having a list of fictional family members help me understand a character? IU information is meant as context. Why a character leaves a show is not context unless there is prose attached that explains it. If you think the guideline is wrong, please feel free to make that comment on the talk page of the guideline, but be rest assured that you still have to meet that guideline come FAC time. The guideline clearly stats that any IU information must be essential to understanding the character, not just simply part of the character.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Nothing was created "that disregards a guideline". Indeed, character infoboxes (including 'in-universe' information) quite obviously came first, and then a guideline was written to describe how they are used. That guideline accurately reflects that facts which define the character's place within the story should be included and will vary for each fictional work.

By the logic you advance, character names should be excluded as 'in universe' information. After all, knowing that their names are 'Romeo' and 'Juliet' doesn't help me to 'understand the characters' any better. That isn't at all what the guideline intends. It is there to keep out "trivial" information. Street address might be considered trivia in most cases... but it isn't for a work where the street itself is the central core of the story. It is important to define that character's place in the overall fiction. Character names are never trivial and aliases/titles would seldom be so. Et cetera.

Contrary to what you say above, we include 'in universe' info in artices and infoboxes all the time. We always have and all our guidelines and policies favor it. We just don't include things which aren't significant to the character's place in the story. --CBD 17:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Now you're just trying to play semantics. Their name is their name, but you don't include every single name they've ever been known by in fiction land. The problem is that this template does nothing to mention the fact that most of these little sections will not be used. Family is IU, and not generally relevant. Now, saying that Padme Amidala is the mother of two of the most well known fictional characters (Luke Skywalker and Leia Organa) is probably relevant if you didn't know who Padme Amidala was. But for just about every other fictional character, the section itself is just a breeding ground for lots of trivial IU information. It shouldn't be the place for family trees, which is how I've seen if when I've come across it. Knowing every fictional family member this side of Kansas does nothing to help the understanding of the character, not even for a Soap character. It would only be relevant to someone that is a fan of that soap, unless by some off chance that family member is widely known beyond the realm of the soap. Luke and Leia are widely known outside of the Star Wars fan community, even though Padme Amidala doesn't actually list them in the infobox. They would have substance for inclusion. But her whole family would not. The template doesn't explain when it is appropriate to include what type of information. The sex (BTW, "gender" should be "sex", as they have two separate meanings and I would assume that the template is asking for their biology and not their psychology) should be evident in the picture, and thus should not be filled out unless it isn't obvious (like, Jabba the Hutt, whose sex is not obvious just be looking at him). The template doesn't explain that such obvious information should not be included, since infoboxes should only contain necessary, relevant information (and saying "Sex: Female" when an image clearly shows a human female is not necessary...not unless there is a source to suggest that the character is in fact something completely different, but only appears to be a female).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The comment above is valid; but there is one additional use of an infobox I would like to stress: Information in the infobox, like family, is useful if it is appropriately linked to the necessary articles, as it provides a lot of information in understanding the character (Except maybe for soaps, that would be a whole family web). But trivial information should be avoided at all costs. I think the information box is useful as it is, but also think that is the only fields that should be in it. The template should however state that obvious information and trivial information should not be provided in the infobox. Regards, G.A.S 18:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Having re-read the comment above; the template is fine as is, but more emphasis should be added regarding the usage of the fields - whether field x is essencial, or trivial in a certian series. And yes, certain information may be evident from the image, but WP:ACCESS states that Infoboxes are a summary of the article (as do wp lead for the lead) and Images should contain a caption, either using the built in image syntax or a secondary line of text. The caption should concisely describe any information contained in the image. As such, information such as sex/gender etc, although obvious are needed, especially in works of fiction's infoboxes.

And not everybody actually turns on images all the time.

Regards, G.A.S 21:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Fictional character infoboxes do not generally get "captions" for the images and the opening sentence will probably alert you to obvious information if you cannot view the image. If it opens with "Sarah Jane is a fictional character of Show X", it's rather clear that it's a female. If you're dealing with a soap, you probably aren't going to run into too many alien species that need sex identification.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

1) In this case, the infobox is the caption.

2)This is a generic infobox.

3)The usage of fields should be explained:

a) Obvious information apparent from the lead need not be repeated in the infobox (Unless it is done for consistency within a series of articles)

b) Trivial information should be cautioned against (WP:NOT#INFO and WP:TRIVIA)

c) It will depend from article to article. All of the fields may not be appropriate in every show. If a infobox is too long, it loses its value.

Regards, G.A.S 22:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Where to begin? I can agree that some of the trivial minutae that pops up in both articles and infoboxes is a nuisance, but Bignole, I would argue that your minimalist approach is somewhat the other extreme. I think you're being too strict with your definition of "understanding" a character; you seem to be implying that an infobox should, for example, somehow explain why Lily Bart commits suicide in The House of Mirth. What would you have in an infobox, then, a name and photo? I'd call that a photobox. It may not be necessary to list a character's second cousins, but I certainly think knowing who Alexis Colby's children are on Dynasty helps me understand her place in that universe. No, I don't care what her address is, but on Coronation Street an address does indeed set context. This infobox is meant to be used for varied characters in varied genres; perhaps that field should be removed here and CS should have its own infobox that includes it, but we also don't necessarily need a unique infobox for every single show or genre. And I might add, assuming gender/sex based on a photo or name is assuming a lot. Even if a pic is "clearly" a human female, I prefer consistency and see nothing wrong with gender designated on every infobox. Nutritional boxes on US food packaging work because they are consistent; we know what information will be covered, we know where to look. Diet Pepsi obviously has no protein, but they still list it at 0 grams on the can.

For navigation purposes alone, I believe infoboxes should have complete family lists (immediate relatives) rather than sprawling family trees within the article or space-eating lists within an article. This kind of information is notable, and is better placed in a neat and space-efficient infobox than written out in prose (when not noted for some other reason in the text). The presence or absence of family members in itself tells us much about a character, no? I make a lot of technical and grammatical edits to articles for soaps and series I don't watch, and while more robust infoboxes can be quite useful, the stripped-down ones might as well not be there. Why do so many WikiProjects require them for a complete article if they're just for photos and, like, occupation?

You have a point that guidelines cannot be ignored just for the sake of it. However, though the paragraph you are referring to from WP:WAF italicizes essential, it is short and incredibly vague. Purposely vague, I imagine. I make many technical and grammatical edits to articles for soaps and series I don't watch, and I find more robust infoboxes so useful, while stripped-bare ones might as well not be there. TAnthony 03:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Why would know Alexis' children in Dynasty be essential to understanding her? You know show was a mother, ok, and that helps you understand her how? She isn't a real mother. Is she notable for being the parent of those children? Explain the notability of having a family list? Does it explain the character in question? Not really. Here's some relevant content: "Portrayer", "Creator", "First Appearance", "Last Appearance". These are essential to all characters. Every media is different, but, the guideline states, In the same way, infoboxes about fictional entities should avoid delving into minutiae, such as information only mentioned in supplementary backstory. That means, if the family is only mentioned as part of the backstory, then they are not essential to understanding the character. If the only time someone calls Character X "Ace" is in the fictional realm, and he's never mentioned by that name in real world content, then it's trivial and shouldn't be mentioned. Infoboxes are not there to take up half the article space. The article already has a lead section, and an article body. The lead shouldn't be just a repeat of everything, only the essentials to understanding the character. You mention that a skimpy infobox might as well not exist, well, you don't need an infobox in an article anyway.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Not to beat the Dynasty example to death, but Alexis kind of is notable to being the mother- and ex-wife from hell, her excessive manipulation of her children over the course of the series is one of her major problems. I agree that characters only mentioned in backstory are probably not worthy of note, but most relatives listed in infoboxes are not backstory. What would explain a character, in your mind? Portrayer, creator and appearances set important real-world context but tell me nothing about the character itself. A character having no children, or six ex-wives, can infer a lot. I think you have a point about the need for notability and relevance, but I feel like your approach is too much. And I would point out that Template:TelevisionWikiProject includes a "needs-infobox" field, which to me implies that they are preferred. TAnthony 03:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, both parties have valid views:

1) For most characters, minimal information about family, especially in soaps, is justified. See Pauline Fowler as an example, where it is referred to in the infobox, but not further described.

2) WP:WAF#Contextual presentation — Details of creation, development, etc. relating to a particular fictional element are more helpful if the reader understands the role of that element in the story. This often involves using the fiction to give plot summaries, character descriptions or biographies, or direct quotations. and Using fictional material from the original work is fine, provided passages are short, are given the proper context, and do not constitute the main portion of the article. I think this also goes for the infobox. But again, such information should be notable.

3) Refer to Template_talk:Japanese_episode_list#Parameters on how I think the fields should be explained.

3) RE: If the only time someone calls Character X "Ace" is in the fictional realm: I would also interpret this as Character X has a callsign Ace, but just for the sake of having one. In such a case it is trivial. In a case like Lee Adama, the character is probably called more by the callsign Apollo than by his real name. That is justified.

4) This infobox is a tool. This is not really the place to discuss whether certain fields are necessary. Guns do not kill people. People do. If the discussion is about the fact that the fields should be explained, that is fine. If it is about whether field X is applicable in show Y, it should rather be discussed at the village pump (if it covers a genre) or the applicable show's talk page.

5) And yes, infoboxes should be standardized within a genre. If all soap characters are human, do not bother saying it in each one. Within SciFi/Cartoons it is more applicable though, as all characters are not always human; although they might act human most of the time.

Regards, G.A.S 06:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

If the issue is that people are listing 'Race = Human' for stories where everyone is human, street addresses which just happened to get shown during one episode of a show but have no relevance to the story, third cousins once removed who never actually appear in the story, or other such 'non essential' information... take it up there. We could add a note stating the obvious ('do not include information which is not important to the character/story'), but that's about the only relevance such an issue would have to this page. I haven't seen any examples of this kind of mis-application, but if they exist the obvious solution is to... fix them. Not to remove the ability to include information where it IS relevant. --CBD 10:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[EDIT CONFLICT]]. Agreed. Period. G.A.S 11:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Felix the Cat doesn't use an infobox. Having a "need infobox" tag doesn't mean anything because WikiProject Film also has a "need cast section" tag, but the style guideline explicitly states that cast sections are not mandatory, and are probably better written as prose. G.A.S. mentioned Pauline Fowler as an example of the use of family. Look at the list in the article itself. It's just a list, one that gets repeated in the EastEnders template just a section below. Here the character's infobox uses DOB and DOD. This does not help you understand the character, because she isn't real. You wouldn't open the article with "Pauline Fowler (March 11, 1945 - December 25, 2006)". There should not be a reason to ever need DOB and DOD, since in fictionland, there is no such thing as death, and since she didn't appear till 1985, she wasn't "born" in 1945 either. I would consider the moment of first creation as her true birth. The DOB and DOD is seriously treating the character as if it is real. Those are two sections where, no matter what the subject, doesn't add any understanding to the character. You might know the character was killed off if the series it was in, but you don't "understand" them at all. I'll concede that there may be times when Family, Address, or some other section may be relevant, but not DOB and DOD.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:30, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Again: Correct.

But instead of just discussing this, rather expand the appropriate section of WP:WAF and/or the documentation of this template. Do not remove the ability to provide DOB or DOD (yet). If there is consensus (and I have little doubt there will not be), the fields can quite happily be deprecated in a month or so.

Regards, G.A.S 11:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

DOB and DOD are highly relevant in stories that span centuries. They define the time period the character was active... which obviously has a great deal to do with what other characters they interacted with, what the story surroundings were like, et cetera. These same factors apply to all stories, but to a lesser extent in those with a shorter timespan. On the other hand, in shorter timespan stories DOB is important in establishing age... obviously knowing whether the character is young or old is significant to their role. Including this information is no more, "treating the character as if it is real", than including their name. It is information about the character which is relevant to their place in the story. If you've got a story where all the characters are about the same age and there is no significant change in which characters are active throughout the story then maybe this information wouldn't be highly significant, but even then I wouldn't call it 'trivial' either. --CBD 12:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

But they are not dead, nor were they ever born. This is what we call "first appearance" and "last appearance". Let the prose do the talking for what happened to them in their last appearance, but you should not treat them like they are real people. Having their name isn't treating them as if they are real, you are just trying to go so far extreme that it appears like this is some outlandish comment. It isn't. Names are what the creators give them, that is how the public knows them. Someone unfamiliar with a character might know them by name, but knowing they're dead is another story. Do you see a DOB and DOD for Superman, Padme Amidala, Jabba the Hutt, Palpatine, or Bernard Quatermass? The Star Wars characters are all "dead" in that universe, Superman has died and been resurrected. I don't know of Bernard has died, but the point is that these are FA articles and none list DOB and DOD, and I guarantee that the Star Wars Database has a DOB and DOD (with exact years) for those characters. It's because it isn't relevant to understanding who they are. It's a trivial piece of IU info. Even someone in a soap, who is believed to be dead, can come back. This is why we let the prose do the talking, and why Pauline Fowler is not a featured article yet.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Critical analysis of fields

The fields below do not seem to add value, as they are already covered in age (range):

• Date of birth {{{born}}}
• Date of death {{{death}}}

The fields below do not seem to add value, as they are already covered in family: If really needed, they can be manually specified inside the family field.

• Spouse(s) {{{spouse}}}
• Children {{{children}}}
• Relatives {{{relatives}}} See Farix's suggestion #4.

The following fields are lacking:

• Series name. This field is regularly added in a lot of infoboxes, add out of universe information and provides opportunity to link to the main article.

 {| class="infobox" style="float: right; clear: right; margin: 0 0 1em 1em; width: 20em; font-size: 90%"
 |-
 |+ '''''{{Series}}'' character'''
 |-
 (Rest of infobox here)

See Farix's suggestion #1

• Rank. In many police / SciFi / etc. series characters are known by name and rank. (But again, I caution against filling this in because it is there)

Regards, G.A.S 12:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Considering my work on Template:Infobox animanga character here are some suggestions to improve this template:

1. Add a {{{series}}} parameter to specify which WoF the character is from.
2. Add a {{{colour text}}} field in case the {{{colour}}} field is set to a dark color. Also allow the use of {{{color}}} and {{{color text}}} as compatible fields.
3. Move {{{creator}}} and {{{portrayer}}} to the top of the template, out-of-universe fields should be placed first before any in-universe fields.
4. Consolidate {{{family}}}, {{{spouse}}}, {{{children}}}, and {{{relatives}}} into one field, probably just {{{relatives}}}.
5. {{{cause}}} can probably be eliminated altogether.
6. Roll {{{callsign}}} into {{{alias}}} since a call sign is a type of alias.
7. Eliminate {{{episode}}}, this field is trivial at best. {{{specialty}}} should also be eliminated because its use is not specified.
8. Create a small number of auxiliary fields with clear instructions on their use. Some WoF will need specialized fields that are relevant only to that WoF, however it would be appropriate to included those specialized fields into the main template.

Farix (Talk) 01:08, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the suggestions.

Before any fields are removed, though they should be documented as obsolete, and phased out gradually (unless it is trivial at its best).

As in Template:Infobox animanga character there may also be use in having a second divider with only auxiliary fields (as is the case with divider, aux[1-10] name and aux[1-10] in Template:Infobox animanga character)

Auxiliary fields will help to make the template much more generic, if possible other (show specific) character infoboxes should be replaced with this one in time.

G.A.S 06:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

After doing some conversion, I've learned that you rally don't need more then 5 auxiliary fields. And when combined with the profile auxiliary fields, there should be more then enough room for customization. --Farix (Talk) 12:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I have an issue with consolidating the relationship categories. Especially in the case of soap characters (who may have many children, spouses and other relations), this will result in longer lists that will make it harder to find information. TAnthony 15:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

In such a case the information is better linked to a section in the article, like [[#Family|(See below)]], although the auxiliary fields 'could be used for it as well. G.A.S 17:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Fields

I temporarily added hidden links to some of the fields so that we can actually see how some of these are being used;

Family members

Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Infobox_character/family

Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Infobox_character/relatives

Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Infobox_character/spouse

Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Infobox_character/children

Alternate names

Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Infobox_character/alias

Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Infobox_character/nickname

Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Infobox_character/callsign

It looks like these are being used in alot of different ways. While there is obvious overlap I also see examples of these being 'stretched' to fit (e.g. 'Spouse' used to list a girlfriend or 'Nickname' used to list the full official name when the character is commonly known by the nickname)... suggesting there are 'gaps' as well. I'd probably keep the three 'alternate names' fields and add a 'Full name' option as well. On the others 'Family' and 'Relatives' could probably best be combined into 'Relationships' (which would also cover unmarried partners) listed after 'Spouse' and 'Children'. --CBD 20:08, 29 September 2007 (UTC) {{editprotected}}

It doesn't seem like anybody is going to make these changes, so I think that these links should be removed, because they aren't really hidden (they show up as a red question mark to me). Svick (talk) 22:03, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree with merging family and relationships. spouse, relatives, children can go, family is enough for them. Alias and nickname may be useful in some cases. Callsign has to go. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:28, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I have removed these, as requested. This isn't the best way to track usage of parameters, as Svick says. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Svick (talk) 09:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Template

Level of change here is "very" high. Also the content of the parameters has changed to give the content a very "visual media" bias. What about the "printed media" . With a infobox named "character" is need to cater for all types of usage of such "characters". Is this being considered. It doesn't look that way. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 08:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The template was created/is for soap opera characters. Generally soap operas are visual.IrishLass0128 16:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, this template was created and is used for fictional characters of all types. That said, I'm not sure what the 'printed media' concern is. Obviously you wouldn't have a 'portrayed by' entry for a purely printed character... but then you just don't fill out that field. What is 'lacking' for support of 'printed media'? --CBD 19:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I suppose the main gripe was the level of change. I have reviewed the infobox in some detail now and most of what is needed for narrative prose based characters appear to be present. Ok what would be nice though is a clear statement at the top of the documentation element restating what you "rightly" said above about the infobox being for "fictional characters of all types". Thanks. If we can keep changes to a minimum that would be helpful. Maybe protection might help, slow things down a bit. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 08:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

If no one objects in the next few days I'll go ahead and protect it as a heavily used template. That said, most of the changes should have been 'invisible'. There is some discussion above about possibly consolidating the 'relationships' and 'other names' type fields which would impact the appearance of some templates, but for the most part people have just been adding options that shouldn't have any impact on existing uses unless someone adds them there. --CBD 11:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Changes by CBDunkerson

Not sure why the changes were made, when I tried to use his/her template on the Bo Brady page it was all messed up. So I reverted it to the template we have been using for months. An explanation before changing it back would be nice since it was not working.IrishLass0128 16:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I looked at Bo Brady side by side with the two different versions of the template and they are absolutely identical. I'm not sure what is going on, but first User:CelticGreen reverted the template because it looked wrong when he deleted all the parameters, and now you've reverted it because it looked wrong when you copied in the description of each parameter. The changes, as indicated in the descriptions, allow greater flexibility... but should have absolutely no impact on existing uses of the template. They should, and so far as I can determine do, look exactly the same - until some of the new parameters/options are set. --CBD 19:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I reverted it because I needed it for the Bo Brady page today and it didn't work. Before all you did was copy and paste into a character's article and fill in the spaces you needed to use. With what you had (before I reverted) it left all sorts of unnecessary information or you had to spend additional time deleting fields that currently were not in use (i.e. last air date). It has always been available without any fields filled so it was easy for everyone to use, in but with the way it is/was before my revert, you have to manually remove what isn't needed. It's bothersome and a hassel. When trying to clean up many, many pages, simplicity is key. Your template is not simple.IrishLass0128 19:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

This edit (and this is the only way I know how to do this) [1] does not look like what an info box should look like. There is information when there shouldn't be. Before no information was in the fields. That's what I reverted it to. You "version" leaves information whereas the other version only shows fields that are filled in. IrishLass0128 19:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Um, that's the documentation of the template... not the template logic itself. It's text. When I'm setting up templates on alot of pages I generally copy from one to the next and over-write the information which is changing. You apparently like to copy from a blank list of parameters. That's easy enough to include in the documentation... though it means having the descriptions of each field listed separately and thus makes the documentation longer. --CBD 19:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. The way I do things, having the blanked template is very helpful. I only have access to Wikipedia at work so the simpler the better. IrishLass0128 19:42, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I have another question, what becomes of all the pages we've done using the other template all these months?IrishLass0128 20:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

It's the same template. They appear just the same as they always did. The new parameters only change things if they are set. --CBD 21:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

More confusing non-answers. If it's the same, why did you change it and have such fits when it was reverted? IrishLass0128 12:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

FYI ~ Before you didn't have to type in "information" it was just there, now you have to actually type it. The box was so much more relevant before. This one is a pain. IrishLass0128 20:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, if you don't set the 'info-hdr' parameter at all then it defaults to 'Information'. That's one of the drawbacks of the 'blank form' you are using... it sets the parameters to 'blank' by default, which is different from not setting them at all. I'll remove that parameter from the default form so you don't always end up setting it to blank. --CBD 21:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

What I would like to understand is the "if it wasn't broke, why fix it?" concept was completely ignored and now the template is junk. Before the lower half information bar was there, no problems, everything looked good, the fields were vital, no unnecessary fields like religion or nationality (I mean, we're talking soaps here), sure there were some fields that never got used (call sign) but for the most part it was a good template. No changes you made enhanced it, just detracted from it. Personally, I don't see the word Information as a drawback. What else is it supposed to say? A few of us have taken a ton of time going to character profiles and replacing or adding the info box using the old template. It worked great. This one by far and away does not. IrishLass0128 12:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Again, we are not just "talking about soaps here". This template is used on Slartibartfast, Fred Flintstone, Scarlett O'Hara, and hundreds of other non 'Soap' pages. You mention the 'religion' and 'nationality' fields, but in fact I didn't add those to the template... they have been part of it for months. I just added documentation of their existence. Which you apparently object to. Presumably people who use those fields and similarly like to copy and paste a blank form would want them included. Maybe if people want 'the perfect blank form for the way >I< use the template' it would make sense to set up a copy that way in userspace. --CBD 16:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Again? What again? Why do people say AGAIN when they haven't stated something before. My understanding since I linked to this from the SOAP OPERA PROJECT link was this was for soap operas. And the template that I looked at through a SOAP character that I had originally copied from this page NEVER had religion or nationality. Maybe there should be just a soap character infobox and a other character because for Scarlett O'Hara, there is no first and last in regards to appeared. IrishLass0128 17:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Having been concerned about the level of change, I can clearly say the template is NOT junk. Please calm down people. It is in "everyone's" interest to add consistency and general simplicity to wikipedia, one of the main purposes of infoboxes. Also bear in mind such infoboxes should only be used for the "most important" information regarding characters. I can see that visual media and "soap operas" in particular can have a different concept of what is "most important". However please try and see each others perspectives. Two very important, points come out of this, 1st the need for template stability, mentioned before, by myself & IrishLass0128 and then 2nd clear and comprehensive documentation of the template covering it's usage (article types) and syntax (i.e. how to use). All the best :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 08:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I always find it exceptionally rude when people say "calm down" ~ it's rude and offensive and the rest of what is said is generally disregarded because people don't tend to read past the rude opening. IrishLass0128 12:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Pot meet kettle, sorry, but there it is!. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 15:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

And your point? Just because someone is spirited doesn't mean they need to "calm down." And your comments border on incivility. I did no name calling, just pointed out that telling people to calm down when they are not upset or hyper is infact rude. You on the other hand directly called names. Calling someone rude and saying a statement is rude are two separate things. If you don't want to read what I wrote, fine, but don't tell me to "calm down" and don't call names. That violates policy but as an administrator you should know that and your behaviour should reflect that. It doesn't.IrishLass0128 17:05, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually I'm not an admin. I have chosen not to be. I'm also unwilling to continue this as we appear to be failing to communicate well. Sorry if any comment caused concern of any kind. All the best. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 08:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Spouse parameter

I'm having a bit of conflict on Serena van der Woodsen/Blair Waldorf pages. The spouse parameter is to only be used to list people that the character has married, right? — *Hippi ippi 01:06, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

What does secondary sources say? I am quite sure "ex-boyfriend" and "hooked-up" would not count as a spouse. depending on interpretation, "life partners" may be spouses, even if they are not married. Regards, G.A.S 05:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Rather than listing all ex-boyfriends in the info box, use the "Flings and romantic relationships" bullet list under "Family and relationships" to list them all. Spouse(s) is for just that, spouses.IrishLass0128 12:40, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I fixed up that page to fit in line with other soap style shows, it was pretty much a mess. It should be better now.IrishLass0128 12:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Cool, thanks everyone — *Hippi ippi 23:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't watch the show so I left "hook up" but if you mean "one night stand" it should really say that. I had to ask my teen her definition of "hook up" and her and her friends all have different interpretations, so I would clarify myself on that.IrishLass0128 13:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, for the suggestion. Not my edit, but I'll do my best. Someone keeps putting all the "flings" etc back into the spouse parameter. Grr — *Hippi ippi 09:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll add a tag not to do that. I also changed "hook up" to "fling" and "ex-boyfriend" to "dated" as is standard. IrishLass0128 16:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

'Information' section

How do you stop this part of the infobox from displaying? There are several characters who do not have anything noteworthy in this section but it still says 'Information' needlessly. asyndeton (talk) 10:24, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Adding '|info-hdr=' to the call would suppress the header box - though it will still show a thin line. --CBD 02:11, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Cheers. asyndeton talk 11:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Better, insert ,noinfo =, to the end of the template coding and then after the = put anything I guess and it will remove the bar. RkOrToN 00:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Cause/Reason removal

I suggest that the Cause/Reason parameter be removed as it seems unencyclopedic. I believe that having that kind of information should be described in text rather than an infobox. Mythdon (talk) 23:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it's fine where it is. It's convienant to have this sort of information easily accessable in a summary of the character, while there is nothing preventing a detailed description of the same information from going in the prose as well. An infobox is intended to sum up information like this. Hewinsj (talk) 16:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Nickname

Why isn't the nickname field working properly? -- Jamie jca (talk) 21:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

Should be at Template:Infobox Character (notice capitalization). Mr. Absurd (talk) 02:48, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Small error concerning position of a set of ending braces

{{editprotected}}

I noticed a small error on this line:

{{#if: {{{image<includeonly>|</includeonly>}}} | <tr> <td style="text-align: center;" colspan="2">{{{image}}} {{#if: {{{caption<includeonly>|</includeonly>}}} | <br /><small>{{{caption}}}}}</small></td> </tr>}}

The closing braces for the second if statement needs to be after the closing small tag:

{{#if: {{{image<includeonly>|</includeonly>}}} | <tr> <td style="text-align: center;" colspan="2">{{{image}}} {{#if: {{{caption<includeonly>|</includeonly>}}} | <br /><small>{{{caption}}}</small>}}</td> </tr>}}

--Allmorris (talk) 19:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Copy and paste

Instead of:

Usage

{{Infobox character
| colour      = #DEDEE2
| colour text = 
| name        = 
| series      = 
| image       = 
| caption     = 
| first       = 
| last        = 
| cause       = 
| creator     = 
| portrayer   = 
| episode     = 
| nickname    = 
| alias       = 
| species     = 
| gender      = 
| age         = 
| born        = 
| death       = 
| specialty   = 
| occupation  = 
| title       = 
| callsign    = 
| family      = 
| spouse      = 
| significantother = 
| children    = 
| relatives   = 
| residence   = 
| religion    = 
| nationality = 
| imdb_id     = 
}}

It should be:

Usage

Basic parameters

{{Infobox character
| name        = 
| series      = 
| image       = 
}}

Other parameters

| colour      = #DEDEE2
| colour text = 
| caption     = 
| first       = 
| last        = 
| cause       = 
| creator     = 
| portrayer   = 
| episode     = 
| nickname    = 
| alias       = 
| species     = 
| gender      = 
| age         = 
| born        = 
| death       = 
| specialty   = 
| occupation  = 
| title       = 
| callsign    = 
| family      = 
| spouse      = 
| significantother = 
| children    = 
| relatives   = 
| residence   = 
| religion    = 
| nationality = 
| imdb_id     = 

That way, editors know the difference between the basic and more detailed parameters. Is this a good procedure?. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 06:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe good practice, however it means that anyone cutting and pasting do not have a comprehensive set to copy once from which they can cut out the deadwood. Also we would disagree over what is basic; series and image would not be basic for written fiction. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 10:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Voiced by

For animated characters, "voiced by" would be more appropriate than "portrayed by" so a voice actor tag should be added.--Marcus Brute (talk) 03:35, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree. --Maitch (talk) 15:58, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Label's

I'm sorry I'm not good at this infobox. How do you name you're custom label. when I enter data1 = it says lbl1, how do I change that to my own? Thanks. RkOrToN 06:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

{{Infobox character
| colour      = #DEDEE2
| colour text = 
| name        = For coding sample
| series      = 
| image       = 
| caption     = 
| first       = 
| last        = 
| lbl1        = SampleLabel
| data1       = SampleData
}}

For coding sample
SampleLabel	SampleData

I trust that helps? :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 10:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks alot. RkOrToN 20:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Code updates

Requesting sync with the new sandbox, which updates the template to use wikitable syntax (which is much easier to read and edit) as opposed to raw HTML. No output changes. This is a precursor to a future migration to the {{infobox}} base template, which will significantly improve the code's ease of maintainance when complete. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Iam on it. I ll check it. give me one hour or so since I am busy right now. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Uh... You want to go from html -> wikitable -> back to html again? That makes no sense. --Izno (talk) 19:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I am not changing anything until we reach consensus. I am ok with both codes, just tell me. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... it appears the code currently uses both html and wikiml? I was fairly certain that wasn't allowed by the parser. :x. I think it may be better to standardize, but before I agree to change, I have to ask why it is that you don't convert straight to infobox? --Izno (talk) 19:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Because I'd rather introduce changes gradually and non-controversially. I'll get on the full infobox conversion once this one is taken care of. Are we good to go now? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 07:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, as long as no functionality is lost, I would think it preferable to do in one shot, controversy or not, not least because of the ginormous job queue, but also because you don't forget about it that way. :P The changes are obviously made now, however. --Izno (talk) 12:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Today, I had more time to check the code. It's ok. No big changes and a lot of simplifications with the use of wiki syntax. I updated the original infobox. I'll do one more thing later. I'll remove the imdb_id parameter as per all other Infoboxes that were using it. For example Infobox Film, Infobox Television film, etc. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:04, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

info header

is it just me, or does the information header look weird in this infobox (for example in Echo (Dollhouse) article). Bawolff (talk) 07:34, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

How do you define "weird"? Did something change? Infobox character and Infobox soap character have slightly different headers if this is what you mean. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:09, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Traits

I got an idea in order to describe chracters and celebrities we should add a traits template in the charcter info box so we can learn about who they are and what role they play in, in the tv show that they are in. I think this would be a good idea so I hope they put it up there whoever can edit this infobox please put it up there.-- Sprite7868 (talk) 12:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Infobox templates are really meant for at-a-glance comparative information, rather than summaries of the subject (which is what the article lede is for), In addition, there's been a general trend towards the removal of excessively in-universe material from this template as time goes by. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Preferred image size

Is there a preferred image size for this infobox? If so, could it please be noted somewhere on the template's page. Thank you.--Rockfang (talk) 04:09, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Problems

This infobox is so sloppy. First of all you should have to put the image in brackets with a measurement. It should be similar to [[File:{{{image}}}]] and the measurements should be in a seperate parameter. The caption should be {{{image_caption|{{{caption|}}}}}}. Why is this box constructed with a table? How about {{Infobox}}? • S • C • A • R • C • E • 17:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Re last question: Someone converted it to Wiki ML in order to upgrade it to Infobox, but he looks to have forgotten it. Btw, infobox and this setup are both tables...

Image setup is compatible with Infobox, aside from caption.

Oh, and calling it sloppy is a bad way to initiate. It's simply old. --Izno (talk) 17:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Age field

Per this, could someone remove the "age" field from the infobox? --Conti|✉ 10:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Before removing it, we should know editors' opinion in here as well. I agree that the age field is confusing. It was supposed to give an idea of the age of the character if the show was not covering a large time period. I agree with removal. Until now, if year of birth was known I was replacing it with |born=. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, there's a pretty clear consensus at WikiProject Telvision, but waiting for a few more comments here probably won't hurt. --Conti|✉ 16:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

You may want to raise this at the other handful of WikiProjects which deal primarily with fiction (Video games and Books, primarily). I think you'll find consensus at Video games for removal also, though I can't vouch for Books. --Izno (talk) 17:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

imdb_id

This parameter has been removed by Infobox film, Infobox TV film, etc. IMDb is not a reliable source for verifying content in Wikipedia articles. So there was consensus to remove this parameter. I am gonna do the same here. As I first step I created Category:Infobox characters articles with IMBD parameter to let a bot run and clean the parameter. Thanks, Magioladitis (talk) 16:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I completely removed the parameter from the infoboxes. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:53, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

A suggestion to improve this infobox's compliance with WP:MOSFICT

To improve this infobox's emphasis on describing "fiction and fictional elements from the perspective of the real world" (WP:MOSFICT and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)#Infoboxes and succession boxes), I'd like to encourage the addition and use of a parameter named something like "awards" which would be used to note when either the "creator" or "portrayer" of the character received in a major award specifically because of the character. It could apply, for example, to an Emmy Award given to an actor, or an award given to the creator in recognition of the character's role in influencing society's understanding of something related to that character. 72.244.206.223 (talk) 22:53, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

That sounds very interesting. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes interesting - However! Which would it be for the portrayer or creator? Also the infobox approach work best when there is only one possible input, or at least very few. In a significant number of cases these fields will be open to multiple values and in a few case, very many. I certainly go along with the "real world" aspect of the original post - but am unconvinced that this is the best method / subject matter to achieve it. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 11:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that such a field would be troublesome with multiple possible uses. Additionally, a similar field was removed from {{Infobox actor}}; if consensus found this not appropriate for a bio article, I can't imagine it's necessary for fictional characters. This is notable information that should be covered within the article text and cited with sources, an infobox field is just a temptation for fictional character triviaphiles to add a quick factoid and not expand the content of the article in a meaningful or helpful way.— TAnthony^Talk 05:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

It's easy enough to have two optional parameters, one for creatoraward and another for portrayeraward. That solves one problem. There's already precedent for multiple values: see Professional reviews from {{Infobox album}}. And according to the talk archives for {{Infobox actor}}, the issue with awards was that there are so many awards given to actors that the infobox got longer and longer, with repeated proposals to add a new type of awards. So its not clear that any of these issues are problems. The "too many" parameters problem exists for all of the WP:MOSFICT-violating parameters already in the infobox. 67.100.126.81 (talk) 07:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC)