Template talk:Infobox character/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

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)

Species

How many species should be listed under the 'species' parameter? And should in-universe dating be included? It appears only one species is listed for most shows. However, there is slow edit-warring going on for several The Vampire Diaries characters in that regard. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Union of Opposites ‖ 14:35, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

In theory, if the species changes then you can treat it like you treat anything and just add below them. It shouldn't restrict the number. I think only 1 species is listed because it's rare that a character's species changes. What do you mean by "in-universe dating"?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:47, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Re in-universe dating, things should only be included in the infobox if it's defining. So if a character was a vampire for 4 seasons, and a ghost for 4, you could legitimately include both. If they were a ghost for 3 episodes, you'd probably not include it at all. Guidelines would say, if you want to give guidance as to 'dating', to refer to the seasons of the show rather than the in-universe chronology or with reference to fictional events.Zythe (talk) 15:09, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

The one I'm seeing most is Stefan Salvatore. The in-universe dating is changing back and forth between 2012 and 2014. I don't follow the show, but apparently it's 2012 in the show this season. Or something. Going by season, though, does sound like the more sensible thing. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Border Town ‖ 16:54, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Where should this template be used

Hi, it's unclear from the article documentation where this template should be used. Is this for unique articles about each character, or are the multiple character infoboxes at this article part of the intended usage? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:49, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I think generally the convention has been that the infobox is OK in lists if the entries are of a significant size; the Wonder Pets example you give though is not, to me, the best use of the template because the entries are short and the infoboxes overpower the list. The information in the infboxes could be added to the entries and the infoboxes eliminated (as a matter of fact, that info should be in the entries anyway, as infobox info is merely intended as a brief summary of basic data in an article and not a replacement for it). I did however add a {{-}} template after each entry in the Wonder Pets list to show you another option, which pushes the subsequent section past the infobox rather than crowd them up. This looks better when each entry is larger, but you may prefer this layout to removing the infoboxes.— TAnthony^Talk 19:34, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Much appreciated, TAnthony. I think I'm going to boldy remove the infoboxes. Seems unnecessary to have a summary of such short sections and it is not something we typically use in these articles. Danke, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:58, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Birth/Death

Why not include the person infobox parameters of birth date and place and death date and place in the template for characters with known birth/death dates and places? 66.26.253.145 (talk) 15:50, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

This has been discussed many times and those parameters were removed basically because fictional characters exist in a perpetual present tense, and fictional topics are always discussed in the present tense. In the past, birthdates and ages have invited cruft, created confusion and even OR issues. Notable dates like these can be referenced within the text of an article.— TAnthony^Talk 19:40, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

It's rare that it really matters when a character was born, unless the novel or film is one which revolves specifically around dates and a character's life within the context of said dates - Benjamin Button for instance. In which case, it's already such a huge part of the story that it receives prominent mention in the text.Zythe (talk) 10:28, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

RfC on Template:Infobox person

This message is to notify you that there is an RfC ongoing on whether to add pronunciation info to {{Infobox person}}, a discussion which may also affect this template. Your comments on the matter are appreciated. The discussion can be found here. Thanks! 0x0077BE ^{(talk · contrib)} 17:13, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 8 March 2015

Add this underneath first subheader:

|subheader2 = {{ #if: {{{series<includeonly>|</includeonly>}}} | ''{{{SeriesPlural}}}'' characters }}

To provide an alternative plural series header, for articles that encompass two characters in the same infobox.

Grapesoda22 (talk) 22:36, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

• This can be done on a single line. Alakzi (talk) 12:37, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

|subheader = {{#if:{{{series|}}}|''{{{series}}}'' character{{#if:{{{multiple_characters|}}}|s}}}}

Not done: please make your requested changes to the template's sandbox first; see WP:TESTCASES. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 01:48, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Remove the link from "Significant other(s)"

It is really glaring, nothing else is linked. --185.34.28.184 (talk) 09:02, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Differences between parameters

What are the differences between these parameters:

• "family" and "relatives"
• "alias" and "nicknames"

Circle Daybreaker (talk) 20:48, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Unborn children

Hello everyone! Should unborn children (aborted or miscarried) be included in the infobox? I thought that it was preferrable to remove them, but I am not sure. I found a similar thread that discussed unnamed family members Template_talk:Infobox_character/Archive_2#Unnamed_family_members, but it dates back to 2010 so maybe guidelines on the matter have been added/updated since. --Sofffie7 (talk) 11:27, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, unnamed relatives are still not included in the infobox, whether they are a parent, husband, cousin or child. I don't think aborted or miscarried embryos or foetuses should be included, even if they are named. However, a stillbirth can be included. In EastEnders, Bianca Jackson's daughter Natasha was aborted and named, and is included. This is probably because Bianca terminated the pregnancy at 20 weeks, she gave birth to the child and it would have still been registered as a stillbirth. Does that help? Then again, I don't use this template but {{Infobox soap character}} - but the same should still apply. –anemoneprojectors– 14:38, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

• No. Live births only. Legally and in terms of demographics, no certificate of live birth means no person. But more importantly such information should be excluded generally to protect the prvacy of the BLP unless it's notable and openly discussed by the person. Even if it's public and notable (e.g., Zuckerberg's recent miscarriage) it would only belong in the prose, not the infobox. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 15:03, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

@AnemoneProjectors and EvergreenFir: Ok, thank you for your input :) Cheers, Sofffie7 (talk) 16:01, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: I believe we're talking fictional characters here, so no BLP issue. Legally, in England, Wales and Scotland at least, stillbirths have to be registered just the same as any live birth or any death. Therefore, for fictional characters, this may be appropriate to include, if the child is named. –anemoneprojectors– 16:22, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

OH! So we are! Lol, sorry about that. Well... I guess I don't have much opinion on it, but lean toward exclude unless it was a major plot point (which it probably is because they rarely talk about this stuff). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 16:32, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Haha, yes my question was about characters, but thanks for taking the time to reply. Actually, I had seen it months ago on Meredith Grey who had a miscarriage so people had written "unnamed child" in her infobox, and to me it was a bit pointless. A similar situation occurred a few days ago on Addison Montgomery who had an abortion while she had thought of a name. Someone else has removed it since. --Sofffie7 (talk) 18:45, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Adding a "deceased" or "alive" field to Template:Infobox character

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#Adding a "deceased" or "alive" field to Template:Infobox character. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 (talk) 07:00, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

RfC announce: Religion in infoboxes

There is an RfC at Template talk:Infobox#RfC: Religion in infoboxes concerning what What should be allowed in the religion entry in infoboxes. Please join the discussion and help us to arrive at a consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:41, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 5 March 2016

Please apply the "nowrap" directive to labels ending in "(s)" to prevent them wrapping awkwardly in certain browsers. For example, to prevent "nickname(s)" appearing like this:

nickname

(s)

86.152.161.64 (talk) 18:46, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

 Done Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 23:03, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! 86.152.161.107 (talk) 03:11, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Imagemap support

Either this template or the module that displays the image needs to be updated to support "imagemap", per the example at The Doctor (Doctor Who) to remove any extraneous markup. There is only one image used (File:Versions of the Doctor.jpg), but multiple different links over the one image. Alex|The|Whovian^? 05:33, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Do we really need to do that to support a single, non-standard use that includes what appears to be an derivative work violating WP:NFCC#3a? This infobox, like most others, relies on Module:InfoboxImage, which is used in over 2.77 million articles. You'd need to discuss your proposal at that module's talk page. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:24, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, we really do, but I'll take it over there. Alex|The|Whovian^? 22:40, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Birth dates and places being added as "lbl#"

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

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

I also noticed that somoene revived bron/died parameter in Infobox star trek [1]. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:44, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Maybe we need some checks in the code to see if labels are "born", "date of birth" etc and rejects such uses. A comprehensive check to see what people are using the custom labels would probably be a good idea. That would allow us to create labels for commonly used custom labels and minimise the number of available blank labels accordingly. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:59, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree, AussieLegend, that would be a really good idea. Any idea how to do that? AnemoneProjectors 12:56, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

The first step is the easist. Category:Articles using Infobox character with multiple unlabeled fields lists 1,116 articles that use multiple custom fields. That's a scary number considering it's more than 20% of articles using this infobox. Use seems out of control. Identifying parameters worth adding to the infobox and those worth rejecting is going to require some effort. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:05, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

That's a lot! We'll probably find that characters from the same shows use the same fields, for example, I looked at some 24 characters and they used "Days" (essentially for seasons, but wouldn't be used outside of 24) and "Other Appearances" which (with a lower case "a") would potentially be used for other series too. AnemoneProjectors 17:39, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I found that as well. I think we need a subpage of this where we can progressively note this information in a sortable table and then, when we have a few candidates, we can add the parameters to the infobox and update the related articles using AWB. This is something we'll need to do over time as there are so many variables. There are some trivials out there too. Regarding date of birth, I actually think we should have a parameter for this, with a couple of aliases, that displays an error instead of the date, in order to get the message across. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:42, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Is there some way of generating a list or must it all be done manually? You might have a good idea about the birthdate parameter. AnemoneProjectors 10:11, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

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

Template-protected edit request on 25 February 2016

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Add parameters father and mother. Visibly it can be shown in parents / family, but while editing please allow to add father / mother. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 20:37, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

@Frietjes can you please help here? -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 17:57, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Capankajsmilyo, better to see if there are objections first. there was recent a push to remove the less commonly used parameters. Frietjes (talk) 18:00, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I made a similar change to Template:Infobox person at Special:Diff/705548038/708274166. I can see how this would be useful, since it doesn't require knowing the unbulleted list notation. I changed:

| label59    = Parent(s)
| data59     = {{{parents|}}}

to

| label59    = Parent{{#if:{{{parents|}}}|(s)|{{#if:{{{father|}}}|{{#if:{{{mother|}}}|s|(s)}}|(s)}}}}
| data59     = {{#if:{{{parents|}}}|{{{parents}}}|{{Unbulleted list|{{#if:{{{father|}}}|{{{father}}} (father)}}|{{#if:{{{mother|}}}|{{{mother}}} (mother)}}}}}}

--Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:39, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. (This comment is for procedural purposes only. I earlier set |answered=no but the requester took exception to this because his request had not been formally accepted or rejected.[2]) --AussieLegend (✉) 06:00, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

@AussieLegend: do you actually oppose the suggestion? The proposal sat here for a week without comment ... — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:38, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

This is a template talk page that is probably only watched by a handful of editors, so a lack of input is understandable and doesn't necessarily mean there would be wide support for the proposal. The template is used on 5,300 pages so we shouldn't be adding parameters each time somebody requests one. The proposed parameters really need discussion, especially as to how they would be implemented (as separate parameters or just listed under "Family"? Are they even needed at all. Should we also add a parameter for siblings?) Adding them without discussion is likely to see them widely unused, as most editors don't seem to bother checking infobox instructions - they just copy what they've seen in other articles. I can see arguments both for and against inclusion. I can see a need to improve the template documentation and that could resolve any issues with not knowing how to use {{ubl}}. {{Infobox television}} used to use line breaks but we changed the documentation to specify using {{Plainlist}} and there have been no problems. So yes, I do oppose it, but only because there hasn't been sufficient discussion. On the subject of adding parameters without discussion, check out sep. Added in 2007 and apparently never used. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:22, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

@AussieLegend does this mean that if nobody cares to reply to my query, it means rejection? Do the proposals have to suffer because of inactive members on this template? -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 13:35, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

@Capankajsmilyo: I notified the Wikiprojects listed at the top of this page for you. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:07, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

@Capankajsmilyo: Essentially yes. You need to convince others that the parameter needs to be added. If you can't get a response to your request you need to advertise it, as Cebr1979 did, when he posted notification of the "'Last appearance' in the infobox" section below at WT:TV. You might care to read up on RfCs before plopping a tag at the beginning of an already existing discussion. An RfC needs a clear question, and this one has been polluted by subsequent discussion. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:33, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

@AussieLegend that's quite unique. In all other locations, the criteria for rejection was if people oppose it. If nobody oppose, it's considered deemed acceptance everywhere else. Can you please point to some WP Policy which states in manner you are speaking. And ya, thanks Ahecht -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 16:30, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

• Like the idea of "parent" parameter, but only under the condition that we shouldn't be falling into the gender binary assumption in the design of the data: some characters are going to have two mothers, for example, or be parented by a collective group, or non-gender assigned individuals (I am thinking gods in certain mythological contexts). Or perhaps, there will be both biological parents and non-biological parents, that may or may not align with standard assumptions about species/gender/etc. Sadads (talk) 16:15, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

@Capankajsmilyo:Not unique at all, WP:PER says edits likely to be controversial should have prior consensus, and this is actually the tack that most responsible editors take as most new parameters can be controversial. It's better to discuss first, especially when a high-use template is the subject. I've seen more than a few edits made that have resulted in complaints. In the programming world it has always been standard practice, at least in the past 40+ years that I've been programming, to evaluate requests first, before implementing them. The people at Help talk:Citation Style 1 can take seemingly forever to implement a request just to take a template back to the revision from yesterday (with good reason). There has to be a valid reason to add parameters and, having seen Sadads' comments in the post above mine, which are from outside the areas I normally edit, I'm even more dubious. What if somebody asks to add mother2, mother3, mother4, mother5, mother6, etc based on the valid suggestion that there may be the case where a character has more than one mother. Should we just add it because nobody oppposes? We would eventually have a bloated infobox full of one-off use parameters. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:08, 8 March 2016 (UTC)`

@AussieLegend - I will the first one to oppose any non-acceptable request. Alternatively, you are always there to oppose. Please don't pre-assume that no-comment means rejection, because it does not. Cutting the long story short, Infobox character is used on a lot of pages about persons (fictional / mythological). So please add atleast basic parameters of Infobox person. As regards multiple parents is considered, if you check the suggestion of Ahecht, the editor can always use parents. However, in case of normal conditions, the editor can use father and mother. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 17:21, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

John Smith
In-universe information
Family	Jack Smith (father) Jill Smith (mother)

The basic parameter of infobox televisionperson is parents. mother and father didn't exist until 4 days ago. We don't need extra parameters just to save a handful of keystrokes. The infobox does the same thing without them. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:45, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

A majority of characters have one father and one mother. Other cases would use |parents=, and the documentation should indicate that |father= and |mother= should only be used if the character has one mother or one father. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 18:20, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Except that we often don't know the mother and father details when a character article is created and even when members of a family are progressively identified, it's rarely in a defined order. A sister might be the first known relative, then a mother, then a brother, or virtually any other combination. If a parent is first known, and then another member is identified, mother or father would have to be replaced with family. It's far easier to just stick with family from the beginning and avoid complications. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:50, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I am not able to get what you are trying to say, but still, I will invite you to visit the pages of hundreds of characters of Hindu mythology which have a father and a mother. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 10:12, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Alternatively, if you are facing so much of issue in adding such a minor field, it would be good to create another infobox, like Infobox Hindu character. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 10:14, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Do you mean something like {{Infobox deity}}? --AussieLegend (✉) 12:08, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

That will also work if it means that parameters |mother= |father= can be included. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 07:12, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Those parameters are already in Infobox deity. You added them here. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:02, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, didn't get what you were trying to say by "Do you mean something like {{Infobox deity}}?". Can you please clarify? Further, father and mother have already been included in person, royalty, officeholder, religious biography, deity, etc. I don't get it why you are opposing it. Don't take it wrong way, but it is now seeming to be arrogant. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 08:15, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

You said I will invite you to visit the pages of hundreds of characters of Hindu mythology which have a father and a mother. ... if you are facing so much of issue in adding such a minor field, it would be good to create another infobox, like Infobox Hindu character. Infobox deity fits those requirements already, with the instructions saying "The template can be used for any mythological figure."

"I don't get it why you are opposing it." - I've already explained why in an earlier post. When creating content for articles using person, royalty, officeholder, religious biography, deity, etc, the subject's parents are usually known at the time the article is created, so they can be populated properly using the mother and father fields at the time the infobox is added. This is more often than not, not the case with fictional characters. Siblings are often known before the details of the parents are revealed, so the mother and father fields are unlikely to ever be used, or used only for a short time. And, of course, there is the necessity to move data from one field to another when use of mother and father is no longer appropriate, which is really unnecessary complexity. These fields only negate the need to learn how to use line breaks or {{Plainlist}} so they're not very high value fields and seem to be just fields for the sake of having extra fields. They're also likely to cause confusion amongst inexperienced editors who will wonder why the mother or father field is not displaying. You should note that I didn't initially oppose inclusion, but changes to templates used in thousands of articles (in this case over 5,000) should be discussed. However, after looking at this more and more I find little value in these fields and when I'm unjustly accused of arrogance just because I'm doing due diligence, I'm less inclined to change my position. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:45, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I was invited to comment: In a very particular order, this is an encyclopedia, then a technical minefield, then a bureaucracy. the Five Pillars serve as pretty much all the guidance we need in most situations where bureaucracy is in play, and technically, this proposal is a walk in the park. All we're left with is the building an encyclopedia.

Infoboxes are by their very definition boxes of condensed information, which in my mind should act as:

1. TL;DRs
2. Navigation widgets

It is my opinion that any info that contributes in either of these ways should be included.

However, as Sadads and AussieLegend point out, there are lines to be drawn; the current method of implementation of infoboxes through wiki-markup leaves a lot to be desired, and I look forward to a day where they're provided programmatically as bullet point summaries on every article. Without this degree of automation we have a duty to keep a lid on things for clarity, consistency and ease of use and understanding for all possible editors.

With great power comes great responsibility, and in this and similar cases, we must exercise caution to not pollute pages with needlessly bloated extras (no infobox should contain info that is not already properly and formerly stated in the article body).

With this in mind, I ask for a handful of example articles where the addition of these parameters would allow a measurable improvement in respect of the two listed (above) criteria, and where that measurable improvement could not be achieved with the current implementation. fredgandt 18:35, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Occupations in finales, specials or reunion episodes

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

Only what happens while the series is airing should go in the infobox. What happens after the series ends can be mentioned in the prose, but it's not part of the series so it shouldn't be in the infobox. Like the lead, the infobox is a summary of an article's most important contents. An article talking about a character speaks in the context of that character within the series, so the important contents are those that relate to the series, not to non-series events. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:18, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

What are you? Owner of this template? Who gave you the right to reject each and every edit proposal? I don't know what's proposed here, but I know for sure that you've rejected every edit proposal on this talk page. Seems like you are the owner of Wikipedia. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 10:03, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

@AngusWOOF No use wasting your time here. This editor won't let anything improve on this template ever. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 10:06, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Please be civil when communicating with other editors. I was simply responding to a request by another editor, basing my response on 9 years of experience editing TV articles, and at least I provided an opinion on the matter at hand. If your sole purpose for posting, not once but twice, is to attack another editor, then you should not post at all. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:11, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

With your experience of eternity, can you please tell me just one edit requests that you din't opposed or let through? Since the time I've been watching this page, you jump in on every edit request, and just oppose for the sake of opposing. I also have a Wikipedia experience of few months. And haven't seen unedited thing, nor template, nor any page not even userpage except this highly moderated one. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 12:28, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

With your experience of eternity Here in the civilised world we have an old saying, you catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:07, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Civilization is in the eye of the beholder. Usually, it's something one claims one has but that another person doesn't. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:36, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

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

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

"Last appearance" in the infobox

What is the purpose of this parameter? These are fictional characters so nothing (not even death!) means they will never be seen again. Fictional characters come back from the dead all the time! Sometimes, they end up never having even been dead... it was all just another character's dream! Unlike a first appearance (which can only happen once), a character's last appearance can change at anytime for any reason without warning for all eternity! Not only is having this parameter not encyclopedic in the least, it creates a lot (like... a LOT) of confusion, leading to continuous errors, even when sources confirm a dead character is not done on a show.Cebr1979 (talk) 03:07, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

If the series the character is in is over, then that shows range of episodes that character appeared in. Characters may be resurrectable, but series seldom are. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:51, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

No, that doesn't make any sense at all. First, I'm talking about characters, not series, and... Second: Really? In a world with Dallas, Fuller House, 90210, The Degrassi franchise, and the list goes on and on... you're saying "series seldom are?" Michael Scofield died in Prison Break (another series to be resurrected) yet, will be reappearing in the sequel series soon enough.Cebr1979 (talk) 04:14, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Even if a series is cancelled and not brought back, that doesn't mean the end of a character! Another World was canceled with Cass Winthrop still making appearances on As the World Turns and Guiding Light. Sophia Petrillo went from The Golden Girls to the The Golden Palace to Empty Nest.Cebr1979 (talk) 04:19, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

"Last" and really "First" appearances are really irrelevant. Either they say "pilot" and "finale", or they say episode titles that mean very little when just reading them. IT's not like a comic book first appearance where you site an issue number and maybe a date. They both should be probably removed, because they don't really provide essential information to a reader.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:57, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

No... First appearances are important. It's good to know when a character debuted (were they original to the series or not, for example). The episode name probably should be followed by a date, though, like in comics. All people (real or fictional) have a debut, so of course we should note it. A "last appearance," though? Zack Morris' last appearance is listed as "Goodbye Bayside Part 2" (Saved by the Bell: The New Class)" however, Mark-Paul Gosselaar appeared as the character on Late Night with Jimmy Fallon in 2009 and again in 2015 on The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon. Were either appearance "in continuity" as far as the character's "fictional universe" goes? Who cares? "The character of Zack Morris" appeared in 2015... that should be his "last appearance" at this point, right? My point is: A "first appearance" can't change. A "last appearance?" There's just no such thing!Cebr1979 (talk) 07:11, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I also agree that "Last appearance" should be removed. I think we had it removed. Why is is back? -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:15, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Last appearance makes no sense. Characters may appear as ghosts, as flashbacks, as plot twists, etc, etc. There are many ways characters appear and re-appear. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:44, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I think some people are looking at this from a very narrow perspective. "First appearance" is obviously the first time that a character appears so "Last appearance" is obviously the .... yes, that's right ... the last time that a character appears. If a character dies in say, episode 20 of season 3 of a TV series then that's when they last appeared. If they subsequently reappear as a ghost in episode 5 of season 12, then the field is either updated, or it's noted in the prose. Remember, not everything needs to go in the infobox. If a character dies, and then reappears (for whatever reason) even semi-regularly, this should be in the infobox, but if it's only a one-off instance then it should probably only be noted in the prose. (If the character is semi-regularly reappearing the field should be empty until they're really, really gone!) Note that the infobox contains the parameter series, and all content in the infobox should be related to that series. If the character appears in the the series, that's what should be in the infobox. If the character is then reprised for a non-series event, say for an episode with Jimmy Fallon, then that shouldn't be in the infobox, because it's not part of the actual series. Instead mention of it should be made in the prose. Mr. Moseby was a main character in The Suite Life of Zack & Cody and The Suite Life on Deck. For him, his first appearance was "Hotel Hangout", the first episode of The Suite Life of Zack & Cody and his last was "Graduation on Deck", the finale of The Suite Life on Deck. He later reprised the role in an episode of Jessie four years later, but this was a one-off event and so shouldn't be in the infobox, just noted in the prose. It's true that some editors just list the name of the episodes, which is really pretty useless. What they should be doing is including a link back to the actual episode entry or article, as I've done in the two examples I've presented.

The problem I see is not one of a lack of purpose, it's actually twofold: a lack of specific documentation, and fields that don't meet our requirements. The infobox really needs additional parameters, perhaps first_link and last_link which, together with first and last would form a wikilink to the appropriate article entry. Additional series parameters (series_2, series_3, series_4) are needed for many characters who appear in multiple works. I haven't looked at the rest of the infobox but it may need others, and it definitely needs better instructions. Infoboxes are not like most things today. You don't need to throw things away when they don't work. They can be fixed. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:08, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

"He later reprised the role in an episode of Jessie four years later, but this was a one-off event and so shouldn't be in the infobox, just noted in the prose."

I'm afraid you're looking at this from a very incorrect perspective. If he appeared in an episode of Jessie, than that is the character's last appearance. If we're going to have a last appearance parameter, it needs to be accurate not just what you decide counts and what doesn't.Cebr1979 (talk) 01:57, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

you're looking at this from a very incorrect perspective - In your opinion. As I have pointed out, there is a series series parameter that links the infobox to a particular series, so all information really needs to be linked to the character as it relates to the series listed in series. Notable, out of series appearances should be mentioned in the prose and there is really no need to list them in the infobox because it just confuses readers. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:23, 8 March 2016 (UTC)7

In your opinion. However, if we're going to have a last appearance parameter, it needs to be accurate not just what you decide counts and what doesn't.Cebr1979 (talk) 11:07, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that's why I said "I think some people", not just "Some people", and I certainly didn't then add "very", just to assert an opion as fact.[3] --AussieLegend (✉) 13:26, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

If the character appears in multiple media afterwards, it can be left blank. As with the age parameter, just because it's there doesn't mean it has to be filled in. Some characters like Mickey Mouse will probably never have it filled. Or it can be regularly updated if it's certain the character will stop appearing for a while. Note appearing = participates in the episode, as with BLP. Video footage from a recap/flashback episode does not count if it does not provide new content. Reprisals count. Parodies, no, unless it's a self-parody. As with sports players, if they retire and announce a come back then they are active, but until they participate as a player in an actual game, their last game played is still the last game played. AussieLegend makes a good point about keeping it in-series though as most of the these other guest appearances would fit in "Appearances in other media". AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:40, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

How does Wikipedia handle analogous situations elsewhere?

• For a writer of books published from earliest 1960 to latest 1990, do we use {{infobox writer|period}} "1960–present" while the person is alive, until 2015 for instance, and then "1960–1990"? (Per the linked documentation "period Dates from first publication to last publication.")
• Professional athletes in North American team sports are commonly said to be "retired" when they are no longer active in the major leagues. When do the WP sports player infoboxes assign last appearances to them? (One baseball example, pitcher David Price (baseball), shows that WP Baseball does not routinely state last appearances between seasons. Offhand I have no example of someone who has missed a year or two at the major league level, by analogy to the writer of nothing published since 1990.)

--P64 (talk) 19:23, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't get the comparison here? If a person is alive... they will eventually die... and that will be final. Fictional characters are not alive and, thus, can't really die... even a fictional death isn't final (not even close)... they can still (and do) return at anytime, anywhere, without warning or notice! Fictional characters are immortal! Look at Thor or Romeo and Juliet!Cebr1979 (talk) 06:56, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I recall that when I was watching Lost TV series a character "died" and he appeared in flashbacks or as ghost in dreams. What would we count as this character's "last appearance"? -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:01, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes. That's my whole point. There's no such thing as a "last appearance" for a fictional character. Every time we say otherwise, we're lying. If we're gonna have this parameter, it needs to be changed to "Most recent appearance" which is even more weird.Cebr1979 (talk) 05:21, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

I answered this a week ago.[4] --AussieLegend (✉) 15:36, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

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

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

Template-protected edit request on 21 November 2016

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

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

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

 Not done Future transclusions of the template may still include deprecated parameters, and hence the category is still required. Alex|The|Whovian^? 02:01, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

@AlexTheWhovian: thanks for the note but I'm wondering if you can go into a bit more detail here. If the Template doesn't support the parameters, the sample code in the documentation doesn't support the parameters AND there are no existing occurrences that support the parameters, where is the concern? Seems that this is more of a case of someone adding a made up parameter to a template. So like if I tried to add {{{favorite food}}} to {{Infobox actor}} I think you would agree there is no need to track that... I realize that is a silly example, but I mean it genuinely. You clearly have a use case in mind that I have not considered. Would love it if you could help fill me in and enlighten me. Thanks a bunch!! --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 02:20, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

The proper order of steps is:

1. Implement checking for unsupported parameters using Module:Check for unknown parameters. (Do this first, because it takes a while to populate unless you want to null-edit all articles transcluding the template.)
2. Fix all uses of deprecated parameters.
3. Remove all deprecated parameters from the template code.
4. Remove all deprecated parameters from the check for unknown parameters. That will make any future uses of previously deprecated parameters appear in the "unsupported parameter" category.

I don't know which, if any, of these steps has been done yet, but that's an order that should work. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:10, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

I have done the first step above. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:18, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

@Jonesey95: yea you hit the nail on the head. There are no remaining instances of the deprecated params being used so step 2 is already done. Just need to do 3 & 4 which I will do now! --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 07:35, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

And if deprecated parameters are used in the future and editors don't take note of the preview? The tracking code should be kept and the tracking category recreated. Alex|The|Whovian^? 08:05, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

@AlexTheWhovian: so if someone ignores the documentation, ignores all other transclusions of the template and just inserts random parameters into the template... That is the ENTIRE POINT of having the unknown parameters tracking... --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 08:15, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, quite, that's what happens a lot of the time. I'm following several unknown parameter checking categories that have articles added each day. Alex|The|Whovian^? 08:16, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Not seeing what your point is.... Those parameters were not even used in the template. The only thing they did was add the page to a deprecation category. So now the page gets added to an unknown param category.... --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 08:22, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

The unknown parameter category, which was not part of the template before, takes care of any unsupported parameters, including the ten or so that had been listed as deprecated. This means that editors who make typos or other innocent errors will put a page in the category, whereas before, the error would have been ignored silently. As you can see from Category:Pages using infobox character with unknown parameters, there were a lot of errors being ignored silently before the unknown parameter tracking was added. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:33, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Gotchya. Alex|The|Whovian^? 23:46, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

The relationships parameter and documentation

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

Suggestion in changing 'species' parameter to 'animal'

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

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

Yeah, this parameter is frequently used for aliens, so 'animal' would not work there.— TAnthony^Talk 18:08, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

What about to adapt this template to get data from Wikidata?

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

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

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

Remove the internal links from "Voiced by" and "Significant other(s)"

It's not Simple English Wikipedia, this is very jarring. SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 16:24, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Fictional predecessor/successor in infoboxes?

How does the community feel about the recent addition (by a relatively new editor) of predecessor/successor fields in the infoboxes of Game of Thrones/A Song of Ice and Fire characters [5][6][7][8][9], using the customizable fields? The data represents other characters who preceded/succeeded the subjects of the articles in fictional positions. I personally think this is trivia of the sort we have removed from other fictional character articles in other franchises.— TAnthony^Talk 02:22, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

@TAnthony: I would love to be opposed to it as in-universe WP:FANCRUFT better relegated to the relevant Wikia site, but (arguably) so is most of what's below the "Information" header in the infobox. So it's easy to see how opposition on those grounds would come off as sort of arbitrary.

As someone who doesn't follow Game of Thrones in either print or TV form, I can't say how important those details would be in terms of the in-universe character. I'd have to defer to those with an interest in those works, regarding that question. But I could certainly accept someone's claim that Predecessor and Successor are as important for GoT characters as dedicated (in-universe) infobox fields like Occupation, Affiliation, Title, Family, Religion, and Nationality. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 00:38, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

MOS:WAF-INFO says "succession boxes, should not be used to describe in-universe relationships in articles about fictional entities" and I think this is just a replacement for a succession box. However, I also don't follow Game of Thrones so what FeRDNYC says also applies to me. — ᴀnemoneᴘroᴊecтors 14:13, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

@AnemoneProjectors: Ooh, that's a good find and very relevant. The entire paragraph, because I think it's all very applicable:

Another common type of template, succession boxes, should not be used to describe in-universe relationships in articles about fictional entities. Succession boxes assume continuity, which may not exist. Furthermore, they may invite the creation of non-notable articles that fall under the fictional succession. For articles about works of fiction themselves, the story that each work of fiction depicts does not change despite the continuation of stories across serial works or sequels, and as a consequence, the events within one work of fiction are always in the present whenever it is read, watched, or listened to. In-universe temporal designations such as "current" or "previous" are therefore inappropriate. For character articles (which cannot be bound temporally), it may be acceptable to use customized templates to summarize information from the perspective of the real world, such as connections between articles describing the same fictional world. Such templates should not invite the creation of articles about non-notable subjects.

...So, that being said, I'm not sure I agree that the use of the custom fields to input succession data has all the same problems as the use of succession box templates. The main objection appears to be that they encourage article creep, since succession boxes are navigation templates that presume the existence of articles about the predecessor/successor. As long as the user adding the succession information as custom fields isn't redlinking names without existing articles, it doesn't seem as objectionable on the same grounds. And even that paragraph of MOS:WAF-INFO allows for the possibility that succession information can be displayed through the use of other templates. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 15:14, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Well, sort of, anyway. Honestly that MOS section's argument about continuity and temporal bounding of article subjects hurts my brain a lot. But I left out the relevant bits from two paragraphs previous, which seem more relevant to the question of whether it's acceptable to include this information at all (the answer, as I would interpret it, being a reserved "yes"):

For entities within fiction, useful infobox data might include the creators or actors, first appearance, an image, and in-universe information essential to understanding the entity's context in the overall fiction. What qualifies as essential varies based on the nature of the work. Where facts change at different points in a story or series, there may be no appropriate in-universe information at all to add. By contrast, an infobox on a character in a fantasy work with multiple warring factions may warrant data such as allegiance.

-- FeRDNYC (talk) 15:22, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Infobox parameters like |occupation= and |title= have (presumably) been included in the template by consensus. The custom fields are to be used sparingly and not arbitrarily. The name of a character (especially one who has not actually appeared in any book) who preceded a featured character in his/her position (Lord/Mayor/whatever) is the kind of thing we cover in plot summary. I wouldn't consider the name of Ned Stark's father (already listed under family, btw) and three guys who came after him as in-universe information essential to understanding the entity's context in the overall fiction. I don't believe Roose or Tyrion are noted as successors in the text (and shouldn't be), so they shouldn't be in the infobox either. And yes, this is a succession box workaround, which apparently violates guidelines.— TAnthony^Talk 15:45, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

I think this conversation could segue quite beautifully into the discussion I attempted to have at the TFD for Template:Infobox video game character. --Izno (talk) 19:36, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't think predecessor/successor is appropriate for the infobox, not because of some "this information is not important for fictional characters" argument, but because a lot of time fictional character articles cover multiple adaptations and even in a single version there might be retcons which change the story, making this field become very fuzzy very fast (Did Phil Coulson succeed Nick Fury as Directer of SHIELD or was it Dum Dum Dugan?). To comment on Izno's point though, I raised my support in that discussion to have a wide overview discussion on all the parameters used/wanted in this infobox, so we could reach a consensus that applies to all character articles and to allow all the 30+ various character templates to be merged into one, so if this happens, let me know. --Gonnym (talk) 20:28, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree that it's not appropriate for the infobox, however, an example of a character infobox that includes succession, if anyone is interested, is {{Infobox Doctor Who doctor}} (they chose to keep War Doctor) out of the succession order). — ᴀnemoneᴘroᴊecтors 18:41, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

I forgot sbout that, Doctor Who is an interesting case because we have a clear and finite series of character articles that have a specific chronological order. I would put that on par with our previous/next episode parameters in episode inforboxes, or preceding/following for books. In contrast, like others here have said, other franchises like ASOIAF or Marvel are not so cut and dry.— TAnthony^Talk 22:45, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

I actually think that there is no reason for Doctor Who to have it either. The Doctor Who series of templates have been "allowed" to be forked from the general TV templates for various reasons, but really are unnecessary. Even for Doctor Who it doesn't really matter the next/previous doctor (even more so as the name is literally "<number> Doctor". --Gonnym (talk) 00:13, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Merge process with Infobox video game character

Following the merge discussion with Template:Infobox video game character that passed, I've added the following parameters to the sandbox version: |designer= and |motion_actor=. A side by side comparison can be viewed here. Any comments and suggestions are welcomed. --Gonnym (talk) 09:37, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

The video game character infobox has the following parameters that are absent from this one: |firstappearance=, |firstgame=, |artist=, |voiceactor=, |motionactor= (without the underscore), |liveactor=, |inuniverse=, and |designer=, which you already mentioned. — anemoneprojectors 16:39, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Different named parameters aren't going to be added. What is being added are the unique ones - which included the |designer= and |motion_actor= ones. I don't see the point in adding |firstgame= as |first= exists, and this template does not have "first film", "first tv", "first book", etc. I personally object to it being added, unless we decide that we want firsts for each. --Gonnym (talk) 16:55, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

That's fine, but once the video game character infobox is redirected to this one, every article with that template will need editing - |firstappearance= will need to be changed to |first=, and |artist= to |creator=, |voiceactor= to |voice=, |liveactor= to |portrayer=, and now |motionactor= to |motion_actor= (if you're insisting on an underscore). First appearance and first game are probably the same anyway, but if they're not the same, then it could potentially cause problems. The |inuniverse= parameter is also unique, it exists to add further information via another infobox (I selected a random article, SHODAN, which displays this, it gives further in-universe information). The only way to save information being lost from articles is to add all the parameters in, then change all the articles, then remove the parameters again. — anemoneprojectors 20:03, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

When the merge version is complete, I'll make a bot request similar to how I did here where I map the old values to the new values. A bot will then make sure that all articles using the Video game character template will use the correct versions when the template is switched over. It should all happen in one operation. Once every article has been merged, only then will the old template be redirected. Regarding |inuniverse=, all the articles that use that will change also, as what it does is give extra parameter options, exactly how this template does, some of those parameters are also already built in here. --Gonnym (talk) 20:14, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Cool, thanks for explaining. It all makes perfect sense and I totally forgot about bots, maybe because my brain is being affected by this cold! I just wanted to make sure the merge would go smoothly, which it will. Not that it affects any articles I'm interested in! But I've seen it before where templates got merged and things ended up being lost, and I was the one who ended up fixing it all on my own. Thanks again :-) — anemoneprojectors 21:03, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I think my cold has totally affected my brain because of course the pages would be changed before the template is redirected! Anyway, this template allows for three extra parameters under information and three more under an extra header. There are five templates that can be placed in the |inuniverse= part of the existing video game character ibox, some of which use six parameters, although some of those actually are already in this template... for example, {{Infobox Final Fantasy character}} has nothing that's not in this template, but articles using {{Infobox Final Fantasy character}} might need more than three extra "information" parameters, so, will that be allowed? — anemoneprojectors 22:05, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I'll setup tracking on the video template to see how many articles even use all 6. I looked at the first 10 results and all just used 3 of those. So this might not be even an issue. --Gonnym (talk) 07:43, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Ok, so I've created these two tracking categories for Skill and specialattack parameter usages. 4 use the first, while 5 use the second and no overlaps. Also, this terminology can very easily be converted to something more generic such as "Abilities" which covers both. 2nd issue is that the most fields used for one of those articles is 4, one more than what we have available with the empty parameters. This is used on Dogmeat (Fallout), Tali'Zorah and Yuffie Kisaragi. The |race= parameter used on those (and other) articles, can use the |species= parameter from this infobox. If the word "Race" is deemed different than "Species" then a simple code modification such as {{#if: {{{species|}}} | Species | Race }} can be created. This lowers our count back to 3 parameters. --Gonnym (talk) 11:12, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

That's fantastic, thank you. — anemoneprojectors 12:22, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Deprecating old "first"/"last" parameters for new versions with support for consistent presentation style

I would like to deprecate the current |first= and |last= parameters with new parameters that could work with Module:Formatted Appearance. The reason for this change is that currently there is an inconsistent style as to how to write the values in these fields. This change will enable entering the values as you'd normally would to the infobox, and the module will handle the formatting, creating a consistent style.

The new parameters would be:

• For first appearance for everything but comics: |first_appearance_major_work=, |first_appearance_minor_work= and |first_appearance_date=
• For last appearance for everything but comics: |last_appearance_major_work=, |last_appearance_minor_work= and |last_appearance_date=
• For comics: |first_appearance_volume= and |last_appearance_volume= replace the "x_appearance_minor_work" parameters.

This would style the entries as following:

• Line 1: "<Minor work>" (such as a television episode)
• Line 2: <Major work> (such as a television series)
• Line 3: <Date>

Example:

For comics:

• Line 1: <Comic series> #<volume number>
• Line 2: <Date>

Example:

Comments? Thoughts? --Gonnym (talk) 17:15, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Names could also be shorten to a style such as |first_major_work= or |first_major=. --Gonnym (talk) 14:46, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Noinclude tags needed

Would someone please put noinclude tags around the first TFM tag on this template? The second TFM tag already has noinclude tags. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:51, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Done. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:01, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

 Undone I see no reason to prevent the TfD tag from showing on articles in this case. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 21:45, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

@Auntof6 and Pigsonthewing: {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 21:46, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

colour param deprecated?

Re: [10]

Is |colour= now deprecated in favour of |color=? Are we deprecating such things generally now? (and what happened to WP:ENGVAR?)

@Zackmann08: Andy Dingley (talk) 23:44, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Not deprecated, feel free to change it to however you want. --Gonnym (talk) 00:42, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

I'd support "colour". PPEMES (talk) 23:49, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

{{Infobox character}} recognises |colour= as valid, just as one would expect. It is clearly not deprecated, and I presume that the editor was mistaken, rather than being deliberately provocative. I've put the parameter back to the name that has been used previously to comply with the spirit of ENGVAR. --RexxS (talk) 00:37, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

I suspect that this is part of a bulk run. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:42, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

@PPEMES, Andy Dingley, RexxS, and Gonnym: To all those concerned, yes this was part of a bulk run with some regexs. Seeing as both display the same, I didn't see any issue with it and it saved me from having to write a much more complicated regex. To be clear, if the word "color"/"colour" was actually being rendered on the page, I would not have converted them in this way. But, all this parameter does is set up the background color of the infobox so it didn't seem like an issue and it is only for a small number of pages. If anyone has a big issue with it, by all means change it to the variation you prefer, makes no difference to me. I just didn't want to have to add extra parsing to figure out which version to use on the page. Since it has bothered people, I will go ahead and add that for future changes. Again, nothing about how the page actually renders is being changed, it only when you edit the code that you will see a change. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 04:41, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

I also see this a complete non-issue. The MoS has no relevance for backend code (if it did, almost all templates and modules would fail in one way or another) and the fact that such code is supported is more an annoyance than a conveyance as it just adds unnecessary layers of additional code for no gain. As Zackmann said, this is not a user-facing difference, "color" shows an actual color, which is the same, regardless of language. And as can be seen, in this specific case, both versions are already supported, so if it is an issue for anyone, just replace it. --Gonnym (talk) 07:48, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

• So why change it? Why write a regex to do this? Or was it a regex that was already changing colour to color anyway? You also claim that this was justified as color is deprecated, which seems to be simply untrue. We have policies of ENGVAR and CITEVAR against both of these interpretations (and edit summaries are supposed to be truthful too).

I do not see this as a trivial issue, especially as I'm a speaker of British English and work largely on engineering history. A lot of what I edit is about preserving subtle historical nuances of spelling ("steam waggon", with two gs, when it's applied to the Sentinel Waggon Works being a typical sort of thing). Likewise Stephenson gauge being 4 ft 8 in, not 1435mm. Trying to merge Acrow prop into jackscrew. It is a regular occurrence for a gradual slide to US spelling to be pushed in, starting with issues like this, then claiming that the article is now `in US English because template parameters are. This is why we have CITEVAR, ENGVAR, et al, to stop this sort of admittedly useless change being done just for its own sake. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:34, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Again, ENGVAR has no relevance to code, which does not show up in a "US English" style, nor does it change any other field. Also, this "change" was not at all for the color parameter, but to actually fix issues with the infobox, which seems is less important than a non-visual cosmetic issue. --Gonnym (talk) 10:46, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

• If this change was done for some other reason, why was it messing with |colour= at all? And why was that change then hidden behind a false claim that |colour= is deprecated? Andy Dingley (talk) 10:55, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

• It wasn't hidden and it didn't claim that colour was deprecated. Please assume good faith on Zackmann edits as he has been doing a very thankless job these past months helping out with templates. The edit summary said cleaning up and replacing deprecated/unknown parameters - in this specific page, |builder= was removed as that is an "unknown parameter" not supported by the template, which in turn places the article in Category:Pages using infobox character with unknown parameters. That category had over 700 articles in it, making it impossible to fix (and this was after a lot of other articles were cleared from it lately). Zackmann's algorithm wasn't a simple find and replace, as it had a lot of parameters to find, replace (and extract from lbl and move to newly created parameters), re-order and set correct spacing to make future editing easier. As he explained, for an easier and faster process he changed to a consistent style. There is really no need to make such a commotion over nothing. --Gonnym (talk) 13:32, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

@Andy Dingley: there is so much assumption of bad faith in your response that I'm not really interested in replying. At NO POINT did I claim that |colour= was deprecated. I am cleaning up a bunch of parameters and colour/color got caught up in the mix. It is amazing to me that you are so upset about something that has absolutely no impact on how the page actually renders. Once again, I want to point out that if the word color/colour was actually being displayed on the page, I would have been more careful as this would actually be altering what the reader saw. But this change doesn't have ANY impact on what the reader sees. Nothing actually changed so I really don't get what you are so upset about. I made a mistake, I've corrected it and am moving on. If you want to continue to throw around accusations about me hidding behind a false claim, go right ahead but you won't get any further responses from me. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:08, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

• "cleaning up and replacing deprecated/unknown parameters"

Now did you replace colour because it's deprecated?

Or because you just felt like changing the spelling anyway?

Now I don't know which, but I do know that neither of these are good reasons. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:49, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm coming at this from a cross-post I saw elsewhere, but... I would suggest dropping the stick. There was a concern, which was voiced. Regardless of the reasons for making the initial edit (accident, "didn't think this would be an issue", "thought it was deprecated", etc), such edits aren't being made any more (at least that is my assumption based on Zackmann's comments). Because this is related to back-end template coding there's really nothing sanctionable about it, so let's just all walk away and remember to double-check our regex (and edit settings) going forward. Primefac (talk) 23:02, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

@Primefac: Couldn't agree more. Definitely going to double check in the future. Appreciate the comment. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 23:07, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Only appearance?

Working on merging Template:Infobox Doctor Who character and came across "only appearance". We have a first and a last... Any objection to adding an "Only appearance" for a character that only has 1 appearance? Doesn't really make sense to use first and/or last for that circumstance IMHO. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:52, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes. Only appearance should use the first appearance. The character is also probably very not notable if it only appeared in one episode, so can't see a reason to add a very niche parameter for this. --Gonnym (talk) 21:46, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 17 February 2019

TfD for "Jane" links to a wrong page. Please replace "2019 February 8" with "2019 February 7" (i.e. change 8 to 7) (the first TfD). Christian75 (talk) 10:29, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

• Done. --Gonnym (talk) 10:35, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 23 January 2019

Please could someone set 'type:disabled' on at least one of the TFM templates?

At the moment every page with any fictional character on has two identical merge notices, side by side, above every character infobox, which messes up page layout and provides no additional value. (e.g. List of Brooklyn Nine-Nine characters.)

(To be honest I'd generally be inclined, when it's a merge from a low-usage infobox into a very high-usage infobox, to only put any notice at all on the smaller-usage infobox, as the vast majority of people seeing the larger-usage infobox will have no opinion on it; but at the least we don't need two.) TSP (talk) 13:07, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, but in one of the past merges, someone did what you said and it was restored. Since I'm not that familiar with the correct process here, I'll leave it to someone who feels more confident about this issue. Sorry I couldn't help. --Gonnym (talk) 13:34, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

That "someone" is me. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 02:49, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done I went with your bracketed suggestion. Cheers. -- /Alex/₂₁ 13:36, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! TSP (talk) 15:35, 23 January 2019 (UTC)