Template talk:Infobox character/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Family parameters

Is it possible to add further parameters mainly relating to the core family: father, mother, brother(s) and sister(s), so that the "family" parameter is not overstuffed? This could match that in Template:Infobox person. --Kailash29792 (talk) 06:09, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

I support this. Data like that of the infobox should typically be presented in a key/value pair, as it both allows for easier computer extraction of data and presents a consistent style for readers. --Gonnym (talk) 09:43, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

We honestly shouldn't have a property which expounds on the fictional family at all, and even if we do keep it, the items listed should be restricted only to separate notable fictional characters or family listings. --Izno (talk) 16:25, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Not sure I understood what you wrote, mind explaining? We currently already have what Kailash29792 asked for, the only difference is that instead of it appearing in a key/value pair, its all under the family parameter with different styles in each article (as its manually entered). --Gonnym (talk) 16:32, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

The "Family" section is only supposed to be for people that are essential to understand the character at hand. It already gets bloated into a family tree when it shouldn't. I only see this as moving further away from the guideline on writing about fiction and move to treating these characters as if they are real people.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:31, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

^ Basically I'm ideologically aligned with that opinion. --Izno (talk) 21:01, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

@Kailash29792: I'm afraid I'm with Bignole and Izno as well. The fact that people are trying to stuff {{Infobox character}} transclusions full of complete family trees isn't a reason to create additional fields that facilitate the practice. It's a reason to remind those editors of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines on writing about fiction, in particular the problems with in-universe perspective. (Those guidelines are the reason that [matching] Template:Infobox person should never be the goal, for the same reason it's prohibited to use {{Infobox person}} on a fictional-character page: The subject shouldn't be treated as a real person.)

And to Gonnym's point about easier computer extraction of data: one of the WP:NOT essays I've always felt is missing, at least in explicit terms (maybe I should write it), is: Wikipedia is not a database. The goal for any article content isn't to provide a structured, parseable compendium of data records in first normal form — that's literally the reason WikiData was created, to serve that exact function. WikiData is a database. To the extent it's permissible, machine-accessible fictional-character data can be stored there.

IMHO anyone who stuffs an entire family tree into |family= is using it wrong anyway. I very much favor the approach found at e.g. Paul Atreides or Scrooge McDuck: simply |family=House Atreides and |family=Clan McDuck, respectively, with |relatives= used to list any fictional members of that family which aren't covered by |spouse=/|significant_other= and |children=. That strikes me as much more in keeping with the intent of |family=. Otherwise, |relatives= is completely redundant.

But, articles like Luke Skywalker, where {{Infobox character}} has both |family= and |relatives= stuffed full of links to other members of the character's fictional family, including branches you've never heard of? The need there isn't to add additional fields to the template. It's to remind the editors involved that Wookiepedia is over that way, and clear out the WP:FANCRUFT. Again, purely IMHO — but not entirely unsupported by MOS:FICT.

(P.S> The WikiData record for "Luke Skywalker" in fact has the "family" property set to "Skywalker family".) -- FeRDNYC (talk) 11:41, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

A few responses - will start from the easier one - your examples of "correct" |family= use, is actually not how that parameter should work, or has ever been described to work in any version of the documentation. In fact, that is pure pointless information in my opinion. Of course Paul Atreides is from House Atreides, what is the point in stating that? Now regarding that guideline that keeps been raised - that guideline, apart from being very condescending to our readers, was either written by someone who thinks our readers are idiots, or is themselves one. An in-universe perspective can be misleading to the reader, who may have trouble differentiating between fact and fiction within the article - seriously? But more to the point, it just does not say what you think it says. In no where in that awful guideline does it state that character relationships should not be addressed. It is just your personal preference that such a thing should be done. Also, another important factor against that guideline, if a guideline is contentiously ignored over all parts of the wiki, from TV, to film, to video game, books and comics - then the problem isn't with how editors add content, but with a limited group of editors who think they know better. --Gonnym (talk) 11:58, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

I was never talking about creating parameters for all relatives; just the main family members: parents and their children. That too, these values would be filled only if the characters were prominent. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:01, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Also, not to detract from this discussion, but as long as we have those 15 additional manual parameters, anyone can add anything, which is much more potential trivia than family members. --Gonnym (talk) 12:05, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Which we should also lock down, either accepting certain fields into the main template if we find uses IAW WP:WAF (not likely) or remove them entirely. --Izno (talk) 12:52, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Actually, we didn't say that relationships shouldn't be addressed, we said that things that are not essential to understanding the character should not be in the infobox, and MOST of family members listed are NOT essential to understanding characters. Vader and Leia being essential to Luke Skywalker...yes. They both helped define who that character came to be. Superman, although he has many relatives, doesn't need them for you understand who he is (from an infobox standpoint). He's fucking Superman. He speaks for himself. He's more famous than any relative, immediate or distant.

As for WP:WAF not saying what we say it says: It actually does: At WP:WAF-INFO: "Infoboxes, usually placed in the upper-right portion of an article, give key data about the article's subject in tabular format. 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." If you have to start labeling roles to provide context in an infobox, then clearly they aren't that essential. With regard to relationships in general, no has said "no to relationships". That would be something in the body of the article that would be built around real-world analysis discussing the importance of those relationships. Otherwise, we also have various Wikias, which are frequently linked in character articles, that serve as more of the fictional world content that isn't appropriate for Wikipedia.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:47, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

If you have to start labeling roles to provide context in an infobox, then clearly they aren't that essential that is wrong in so many ways. Just because some editors know that Vader is Luke and Leia's father, that does not mean that every person on the planet knows that. Providing information that helps readers identifies a subject is not something we should take away. And to Izno, I agree with that. --Gonnym (talk) 16:40, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

It's not. If they were essential, then bare minimum they would likely have a page of their own. Context should not be needed for an infobox. Context is provided through prose, which is in the body of the article. It isn't about knowing automatically that Vader is Luke's father. It's about understand that if someone put him in the infobox he must be essential to understanding Luke Skywalker (turns out, it's because he's his father and the main villain of the original 3 movies). Putting a random relative in and saying "cousin" as if that somehow shows that their essential is frivolous. Their relationship doesn't make them automatically essential to the character at hand. The important part is, we have a guideline, contrary to initial report, that expressly says that's a requirement for in-universe information in an infobox.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:13, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

What began as a rather peaceful request seems to have now turned into a messy foodfight. Now the consensus is against new parameters for family members being created (some are even opposing the inclusion of family in the infobox of characters). I only wanted parameters to be created for the core family members and they would be filled ONLY if the characters were essential. But since this request is proven to be irrational and absurd, I'm backing out. Sorry for wasting your time friends. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:07, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

But since this request is proven to be irrational and absurd, I'm backing out. Sorry for wasting your time friends. Easy, easy. It's okay to stay tuned in without calling your own ideas irrational :). Maybe another way to look at it is if it's only for essential characters, that's what |family= is supposed to do, and if |family= isn't doing it, why should we think that |brother= will also only be filled with essential characters? We have evidence the one parameter doesn't work, so we're going to try another parameter...? --Izno (talk) 22:34, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

The family, spouse, and relatives ones seem to exist as shown with Richie Cunningham, although that one is coatracked with all sorts of random relatives and in-laws. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:42, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

@Kailash29792: I'm (and I'm assuming no one else) not saying your suggestion is irrational; I understand where you're coming from. My point is that adding more parameters is likely to lead is further into trying to treat these character like we're following WP:BIO instead of following WP:WAF. Just liked at the Richie Cunningham box. It's filled with 8 relatives of different roles and most, if any, are essential to him as a fictional character. It even lists his gender as if it was a questionable item. Why? Because the parameter exists and people feel the need to fill it. That's my fear with more family-based parameters (hell, more in-universe parameters period). It currently has family, spouse, significant other (which really should be merged with spouse), children, relatives (which is really family..). There are plenty of options...probably too many. I don't think we need more, I would argue would ultimately need less with better emphasis on the ones that are essential instead of the idea that they should all be included.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:25, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

I'll repeat this for the last time this thread, WP:WAF does not regulate what to include in an article, this is your personal interpretation of it. The only word there it uses is "essential" which is a very unhelpful word. What is essential to one person, is trivia to another - as an example of this, while the video game character infobox was merged, an editor who opposed the merger claimed that all family parameters are trivia, while at the same time was fighting to keep weapon name and weapon type parameters, that to me were trivia. To me, a character's brothers and parents, if notable and appear in the works are essential, such as Luke Skywalker's family, Mario and Luigi, Oliver Queen and Thea and Emiko. That is also looks like BIO, so? Again, nothing in any guideline or policy prohibits it. The only thing that it needs to follow is WP:V, but that is an entirely different issue and not specific to any fictional article. Also, to reply to a comment from before - arguing that context has not place in a fictional infobox misses the point that it is not something unique to fictional articles, see the infobox for Donald Trump which has parenthesis showing dates of marriage and divorce, years affiliated with a party, or when the latest net worth estimate was taken, or Brad Pitt (a FA), that has among other things "(brother)" in the infobox. That said, I somewhat agree that context should not be used to explain fields, which is why I believe that |Bother=Luke is much better than |Family=Luke (brother). --Gonnym (talk) 11:27, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Last or latest appearance?

Is last appearance meant to be for the last appearance of a fictional character or just the latest? JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 14:30, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

They're rather synonymous, in my mind. Primefac (talk) 14:42, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

They really aren't. Last as was implemented and used even before I started editing this, was for the last appearance of the character, not the latest appearance of the character. --Gonnym (talk) 14:59, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

But if they appeared in Episode 51, regardless of whether that was the "last" appearance or the "latest" appearance, it's the "most recent" time anyone's seen them. Am I correct in assuming that both of you are potentially reading "last" as "this is the last time that we'll ever possibly see them because they're dead/gone/etc"? Primefac (talk) 15:02, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes. Either the character is killed or written off or the franchise has ended (at least for the time period). I take "last" as meaning that there are currently no plans for the character to ever appear again. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 15:05, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Primefac, yes, that is how I'm reading it. --Gonnym (talk) 15:20, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

• This has always been a rather ambiguous field. I take it to be the last appearance before the next one. I've seen several people arguing both sides, but no with conclusion. - SchroCat (talk) 15:23, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
• ​ There is at least one editor at this discussion who for infobox video game character (since-merged) disagreed with "last" appearance. That template had neither last nor latest. I think in both cases it's a pain of a parameter as a) it is ambiguous per this discussion, b) people [read: fans] can treat it as either in-fiction or out-of-fiction, and c) I'm not sure what value it adds to an infobox. --Izno (talk) 16:42, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I actually find it very useful as it gives a reader an indication of when that character's story was over. Any ambiguity can be addressed in the docs ("last" vs "latest", in-universe vs production). Whether said editors will read the docs or not, that cannot be helped. There are some articles here (and most fan wikis) that take this one step further and have seasons listed (see Max Greevey). --Gonnym (talk) 17:39, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
    • an indication of when that character's story was over I'm not sure it does. Prequels are a thing these days, which I believe would be a 'later' out of universe appearance (which are what we should be providing for readers--haven't checked the template docs on the point), as are 'later' sequels (c.f. Star Wars Episode 8 and all the hubbub about Luke Skywalker's possible appearance). 'latest' makes some sense in that context. 'last' does not. --Izno (talk) 18:02, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
      • 'Latest' seems more generally-applicable. Calling a latest appearance a last appearance may be confusing; calling a last appearance a latest appearance I'd say is fine. We could add code to change the label, so editors can designate when an appearance is clearly a last one and when it is merely a latest one; but, especially in comic books, "last" appearances often aren't anyway ("The only people who stay dead in comics are Bucky, Jason Todd, and Uncle Ben"), so I suspect it's safest to use "latest" at all times, and be clear that it is simply the last-published work in which the character appears. TSP (talk) 11:12, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
        • Both in-universe and real-life can work, we just need to decide what format we work with - it can be in-universe and then it lets readers know the story-arc limit, and it can be real-life and can be appearances in the media. It can also be both, with |last= following in-universe appearance, and |latest= following real-life. Both have their uses and both offer readers with value information. Also, just to comment on comic book usage, sadly comic book articles don't use this infobox at all, so no point in adding comic characters as an argument. --Gonnym (talk) 12:15, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
          • Comic book characters and video game characters would be a mess given all the flashbacks, passing mentions and reboots. At least with television characters portrayed by actors, you can identify their final appearance in a series and ignore reunion specials. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:59, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

If you're talking about recurring characters, then "latest" may be apt. If you're talking about series regulars, then it's a field that does not need to be filled out until the show is done (or the character is gone). Otherwise, you're just updating it every single week. You just put "on-going" or something similar to indicate that they are an active character on the show.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:32, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Height

It would be useful for characters like Tyrion Lannister, and the Master Chief. The Optimistic One (talk) 18:45, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Why would it be useful? How does the height give any useful context to the character? --Gonnym (talk) 19:17, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Because some people would like to know of these paticular ones. I'm not saying this would be the case for all characters; it's just characters like these ones. The Optimistic One (talk) 19:24, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Usually that's a good reason to discuss it in the text-proper rather than provide a parameter for all characters. --Izno (talk) 19:36, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

There's already a couple of parameteres that are used by a minority of infoboxes. Firstgame only really needs to exist for primarily video game characters where they're first appearance would have been in a different medium (e.g. novel, film). Religion is another one, not every characters faith is known, and even less often does their faith be a defining characteristic. Other examples include, weapon, affiliation, and children. Atleast every character has a height. The Optimistic One (talk) 19:52, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Other stuff exists. If you want to have a discussion about those parameters, then start a section about removing them. --Izno (talk) 19:54, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

But do you see what point I'm making? The Optimistic One (talk) 19:56, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

You are right The Optimistic One, there are a lot of parameters currently in the infobox that I personally believe should be removed, including some of those you mentioned above. --Gonnym (talk) 20:00, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

As with infobox person, it needs to be a defining characteristic, otherwise it does not pertain. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:29, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Per guides on writing about fiction, this stuff comes down to needing to be essential to understanding the character. How tall someone is does not fall under that category. It's the same reason we shouldn't have family trees in infoboxes. Most of the time, outside of one likely member of the family, they are not essential to understanding the character in question.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:19, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

codification of last_

What was the consensus decision to arise from this discussion? Can that consensus decision be codified in the template's documentation? I ask with regards to this discussion. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 16:09, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Species v. Shurubel

i think people are overusing the term species for fictional charecters and neglecting the other taxonomic terms.I would sugest replacing the term species for animals with "animal type" for plants with "plant type" and so on since it could be used as a basic descriptor , which is what most wikipedia editors already use species for. Shurubel (talk) 18:41, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

What is wrong with the word "species" for animals and plants? Could you give examples of where you think there is an issue?--Gonnym (talk) 19:21, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Look up any Fictional dog on Wikipedia, they always have the species name as Dog instead of Wolf, and when I tried to edit it to the correct name people always edit it back.Sometimes they even had the name of the BREED instead of the name of the species!Also there are some animals which we don't really know the species of ex:(Donkey Kong)We know that he is a Gorrila but gorrila is a Genus which contains two species:The Western gorrila and the Eastern gorrila and Donkey Kong is not really either of them,but instead of it being Genus:Gorrila or Species:Unspecified Species of Gorrila,it simply says Species:Gorrila which is taxonomically wrong and is really bad misinformation.Also the worst part is that i've seen these mistakes even for REAL animals, especially dogs.So in conclusion people on Wikipedia are misusing the term Species and it spreads misinformation which is the total oposite of what Wikipedia is supposed to be for. Shurubel (talk) 07:08, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

You'd be right if the parameter was called taxonomic_species or biological_species, but it's not. Per en:wikt:species, "species" can also (and predominantly) mean "type" or "kind". I assume that most non-human fictional characters that use the species parameter can't be classified by taxonomic standards at all, but rather as klingons, fictional dogs (that can e.g. talk), or electric-type Pokémon. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:34, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm not talking about fictional species such as Saiyans, Pyronites etc.I'm talking about fictional characters who are real animals. Shurubel (talk) 09:13, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

With all due respect, as a taxonomy layman, if I'd read in the infobox that Lassie was of the wolf species, I'd immediately change it to "dog". Again, "species" also mean "type" or "kind". Taxonomy has little (if any) importance for the majority of fictional characters. They are all invented (even Lassie). – sgeureka ^t•c 09:53, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Addition of "native name" parameter

A discussion currently ongoing has stated this template is missing a "native name" parameter, which would have utility for many foreign-design/made characters (the discussion in question is about characters from Japan, but I can see this as being a larger interesting parameter). I suggested there that intended use should be something like |native name={{lang|...}}. Would there be support for adding this parameter? --Izno (talk) 19:49, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Yeah sure. We can either use lang, or use {{Infobox name module}} (haven't really checked this template). Note that it's counterpart |native_lang_code= is also needed. --Gonnym (talk) 20:06, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Its counterpart would only be needed if we didn't let this be a freeform field--the reason I'm kind of against that is because Japanese can be written in multiple scripts. But not a biggy for me at the end of the day. --Izno (talk) 20:25, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

@Izno and Gonnym: As I've noticed this parameter hasn't been added yet... would it be possible to add it in the same fashion as done on {{Infobox person}}? Here's a sample. Given it's the name of the character I feel like it'd make more sense to give a character's native name the same weight as its English version. DanielleTH ^{(Say hi!)} 15:56, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

I actually think that it's giving it a much undue weight. Most of our readers can't read the non-English word, no matter what language it is, even if it's Chinese or Spanish. The point of the title is to be read, if people can't read it then what is its use? I'd guess the reason that it has a prominent place in the person infobox is because it's a living person. I'd oppose placing it at the top, but as I've written above, support placing it in the infobox at it's first field. --Gonnym (talk) 16:01, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

I understand that. I'd support having it as the first field as well, given that it's added in some capacity. DanielleTH ^{(Say hi!)} 16:03, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Considering that Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2020_January_11#Template:Infobox_animanga_character resulted in delete and convert to Infobox character, this would be useful. This would not apply to characters that are strongly known by their English name like Mario, but it can be placed lower in the infobox like Sony as opposed to the top like Utada Hikaru AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:13, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Removing parameters regarding WP:WAF

A number of recent template mergers have occurred, over reasonable objections (and I include myself among those objecting) that this template has too many parameters which allow for unimportant fictional information. There has also been discussion on this talk page resisting addition of further WAF-infringing parameters.

I'd like to start a discussion about figuring out which ones we agree aren't good from a WP:WAF perspective (all of the custom parameters are IMO) as well as some-to-many of the named parameters, subsequently proceeding to removal after that discussion (+- an RFC if necessary).

To start, I realize that with a loss of the custom parameters would come the customization, but it would enable us to avoid excessive, usually-unnecessary, detail. --Izno (talk) 18:50, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Although I think that, in general, there are too many in-universe parameters in the infobox, I also know that the vast majority of shows from SOAPs to Sci-Fi shows are so divergent in the information that is important that it becomes difficult to have a "one size fits all" approach. Unless you just get rid of all IU information (sans the name of the character).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:17, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Divergence also occurs in video gaming, but it's the difference between Mario as appearing in Mario Bros. and one the more plot-ful characters, such as Geralt of Rivia from Witcher 3 (to use a recent distinction). I liked the model that {{infobox video game character}} took before its merging, but I doubt that that model is reasonable even here as it demotes standardization (rather than promotes standardization). (Basically, an infobox "module" was used in the context of |inuniverse= which provided a small set of parameters, such as {{Infobox StarCraft character}} with |species=, |affiliation=, and |position=.) --Izno (talk) 19:44, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree that there is a lot to remove. I first though would like to state my opening position on this matter. I think that some editor's reading of WP:WAF is flawed and is used as a weapon against anything in-universe. In-universe is not a bad word, is not bad content and its place is not only at Wikia. In-universe is very useful for readers that want to learn about the actual story of the item and not just "production" details. That said, not all things were created equal and not everything that is in-universe belongs here. I agree that the 15 custom parameters are bad. If there is a need for a parameter, it should be added to the infobox where it can be standardized. --Gonnym (talk) 19:22, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

I think I generally agree with this position, but I would contend that for most characters or fictional objects, the "story" can/should be provided in the context of the works in which that character appears, with much-more limited use in the context of the character article (per WP:NOTPLOT). "Appearances" sections get bloat-y otherwise. The infobox has much the same characteristic in this regard to me. --Izno (talk) 19:44, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

I'll add what I think should not be in the infobox: |lbl#=, |data#=, |noinfo=, |info-hdr=, |extra-hdr=, |nickname=, |significant_other=, |religion=, |nationality=. |occupation= and |title= should probably also go as they are more misused than actually used correctly. |firstgame= should go as that means that if we have that, we should have for each media type, as we can't be biased to one media. |color= - no reason for rainbow colors. I'll add that I think the family parameters are both important and useful. Important as they identify and place the character in the larger story context. Yes, some people will know Luigi is Mario's brother, but there are others that don't. We write for everyone. It's also useful, as it allows fast navigation between a small set of articles. This is similar in nature to how other infobox do. Take for example {{Infobox officeholder}} which has navigation between prev/next people. I don't really have opinion on the 2 video game parameters |fighting_style= and |weapon= as I don't edit those articles, but one editor was very persistent on how important they were during that merge. |alias= when used correctly is important, especially for comic book related characters, such as Tony Stark / Iron Man. While I think the various actor parameters are important, because of how we use most of our articles, that is, we have 1 Batman article and not one for every film/TV version, these lists can be very long, full with small tags and parenthesis and film abbreviations. Not sure what is better though, not having them at all like in the Batman infobox, or having too many of them. One parameter not in the infobox, but I've seen a lot of custom parameters use it, and I think might actually be useful, is the season's the character was on the show (for TV series). --Gonnym (talk) 20:03, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Gonnym knows my position with regard to "Family" and the similarly themed parameters, and that's that they are rarely important in the infobox. Knowing someone is married, has children, etc. does not lend itself to understanding a character. Exceptions to this are when those individuals themselves are somehow of imnportant (e.g., Darth Vader being Luke's father is a significant fact about both characters that is essential to who they both are, and both characters are well known enough for people to understand that importance). I tend to err on the side of not important as a whole, with exceptions to when they are (as opposed to they are always important, except for the few times they aren't approach). The problem with arguing that a family member is "essential to understanding the character" means you need context for how they are. Being someone's wife doesn't mean you're essential and I can point to countless examples of "wives" that are irrelevant to a character. Since you cannot provide context in an infobox, because it doesn't hold prose, it becomes non-essential. The point of the infobox, whether that's from WAF/MOSTV or any similar guideline has always been "what is essential to understanding the character".

With custom parameters, I'm not opposed in general, but I'm opposed to how many we have. Custom parameters were not intended to get around not having a specific one that was removed for a purpose, but recognizing that there are sometimes specialty tags for certain mediums/topics and they don't impact the field as a whole.

I've said before, I rarely see a reason for nationality, job, religion, nickname (which is really already there as "alias"), because unless it is something special about the show (e.g., a show about religious feuds might be relevant to have that category...but I would say use a custom field for it). I think as a whole, when you have specific fields people feel the need to fill them all in, even when they are not needed.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:40, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

"Knowing someone is married, has children, etc. does not lend itself to understanding a character." Actually, it does in the context of (daytime) soap operas. I can't tell you the number of times I've gone to one of the character or LoC articles for the soaps to figure out how a (returning) character is related to the current characters to figure out who they are – heck, I did that just recently with Brook Lynn Ashton. So, no – I actually think the 'family' parameter is potentially important (though it likely won't be used for most TV character articles) and should be kept. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:55, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

That's a good argument for keeping this information in the article but not necessarily the infobox.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:12, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

I very much support the removal of many in-universe parameters, but I admit I can't say exactly which, because I am only familar with (some) TV but e.g not video games and comics. For the same reason, I am worried that an unstructured discussion would lead to a TRAINWRECK. I therefore propose to list all current parameters in a table, and then have an opt-in discussion for each one and slowly fill the table with examples, see the example below. Controversial parameters can still be discussed separately. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:57, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Parameter	Use	Out-of-universe	Needed by WP:TV	Needed by WP:VG	Needed by WP:COMICS
color	Background color for header bars	Yes
name	Character name to display in top header	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
portrayer	Name of the individuals who portrayed the character.	Yes	Yes	No	No
fighting_style	The primary fighting styles used by the character.	Yes	No	Yes	No
family	The character's family members.	No	Yes Example		Yes Example
religion	religion	No	Rarely Example	No

I've edited a few character articles and related infoboxes and have seen how they can become bloated. Drawing from my more extensive experience with film infoboxes, there seems to be a tendency to fill out all parameters just because they exist. It seems like the same thing happens here, and it's more problematic because of the in-universe nature of many parameters. Something like "occupation" can be problematic with a character that changes over media. Princess Leia is one such example (with an infobox that makes me wince in its extraneous coverage). I think it would be better to have less formal parameters and to have guidelines at Template:Infobox character (like we have at Template:Infobox film) to be able to point to. For example, Steve Rogers (Marvel Cinematic Universe) has "grief counselor" as one of the occupations, and there needs to be a way to treat instances like that as relatively extraneous. To draw on a real-world example, Michael Crichton used to be a physician, but per a talk-page discussion to form a consensus, that is not mentioned in his opening sentence or his infobox. Many details, like Leia's extended family and birth planet, just don't matter enough in the scheme of defining her character. Like if it's not covered in the lead section or the first paragraph of it, the question should be asked how much this so-and-so extra detail matters. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:13, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

It's ultimately a question of what the purpose of an infobox is, and if you're like me and you think that it's supposed to be a quick summary of the most important aspects of a topic, the more fields you fill in the worse you're actively making it. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 20:30, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

And this is an iffy table for at least two reasons: 1) It's missing various things like film, novels, anime/manga, and various specific genres. 2) Wikprojects do not set policy on such matters. No one cares what "WP:TV" wants. What matters is whether there is something behind these alleged expectations and dubious parameters that the community accepts as a site-wide guideline (e.g. MOS:TV, MOS:FILM, MOS:COMICS, MOS:VG, MOS:ANIME, MOS:FICT, MOS:INFOBOX – none of which are wikiproejct WP:PROJPAGE essays, though most began that way; people who are not participating in those projects edit them and keep them in line with other guidelines and with WP:CONLEVEL policy and so on). And it matters whether these guidelines say anything about expectations of what's in character infoboxes. If they don't, then the existence of some parameter in an infobox is basically meaningless; it just indicates that someone felt like adding it, and whether doing so was a good idea has not been vetted. If there are conflicts between what different guidelines expect, then this needs to be hashed out. So, yes, it is good to have this discussion. If a clear consensus emerges from it, it needs to be integrated into all of those guidelines, or it'll just be forgotten in short order, and people will add more questionable parameters to suit their urges to fanjaculate all over our pages with spurts of in-universe trivia. (Lest that sound harsh: I'm a total fanboi of numerous things, and my most-edited wiki outside this one, though under another username, is video-game-related; I just know the difference between working on an article here and wonking on one at Wookiepedia or whatever).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:26, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

I'll stand that infoboxes on fictional characters, regardless of which project would oversee it, should minimize elements of aspects that otherwise treat the character as a real-world person. Things like family and religion do that. The infobox of a character should be based on the out-of-universe facets - who portrays them (if that's the case), the work(s) they are associated with, etc. The less we try to document a fictional character as a real-world item, the better we are. --Masem (t) 22:14, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Also I've found these added character items tend to draw a lot of edit warring by peple too far interested in the "plot" and not the real-world stuff. Clementine (The Walking Dead) has seen a number over how Lee and Alvin Jr. are related to her, and unless you have actually played the game, the bulk of that information below the bar is useless. --Masem (t) 17:56, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

I completely disagree that we need to document only "real world" facets of a character. A major part of the reason the character article was even created, is because of the in-universe interest it has to a large number of readers. I honestly do not understand the repulsion some of you have for "in-universe" stuff. As long as it's not trivial, not original research and provided along with verifiable references, it matters not if it's "fictional" or real. There is a valid encyclopedic value in fictional elements. For a reader interested in a certain subject, there really is no difference if they are reading about the history of world war 2, or reading about the history of Clementine. The difference is only in how good the article is written. Ignoring the fictional aspects of it and only talking about the real world parts is presenting a half-backed article at best. --Gonnym (talk) 18:25, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

The in-universe stuff has zero bearing on notability of a character. We discount that, unless that itself is the subject of commentary from secondary sources. That's the problem with most of our articles on fictional characters is that they are written starting from fancruft, rather than as as a notable fictional character and amending primary-source information as supporting. We have been fighting this for years, and the fact the character infobox encourages this is not good. This is not saying what is documented presently in the character infobox can't be in the article, but for the reader that has zero interest in the work of fiction, it is better placed in prose to provide context. --Masem (t) 18:36, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

I completely agree with you. In-universe means nothing for notability. However, once notability has been established and an article for a character is valid, there is no reason to hide in-universe stuff. That is the main problem I see, that the side arguing for less in-universe (not saying that is your specific argument) thinks that notability needs to be found for every piece of information. But even WP:NNC says that the notability guideline does not apply to the content. --Gonnym (talk) 18:44, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, there actually is a reason to keep what is covered for in-universe to a reasonable minimum, and much of what the character infobox tends to be details typically not needed in many character articles, or details that need to be seen at the top level. What tends to happen is that because we do allow works on fiction to be sourced to the work themselves without citations, editors flood these articles with primary information, but that itself is against both general sourcing principles (articles should be based on what third-party sources given and thus the appropriate DUE information) and should not excessively focus on the in-universe stuff per WP:NOT#PLOT. Encouraging editors to find values for these infobox fields doesn't help towards that. --Masem (t) 19:12, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

We will have to disagree then. You don't find value in fiction details, I do. There are many holding your opinion, and there are many holding mine. Just to comment on a mistake you have, What tends to happen is that because we do allow works on fiction to be sourced to the work themselves without citations, that is actually not true for character articles. When you write the plot for a film, then it's obvious what the source material is. When you write the plot (or any other fiction aspect) for a character article, there is no one "work", which means that citation templates such as {{Cite episode}} and {{Cite AV media}} should be used, hopefully with the time code. Again, what you describe is bad editing, not bad content.--Gonnym (talk) 19:16, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

But, what that tends to create is a per-instance breakdown of the character's details. eg Rick Grimes is a terrible article from this standpoint, despite placing those sourcing points. The key about sourcing characters that appear in multiple works or serial works is that the summary should be plainly obvious and non-interpretive , and should be made easy for the reader to verify. To this, a per-season breakdown of Rick's character without any sourcing markers is fine (though they can and should be added, no question) because a season is short enough to be watched to verify. But key events definitely should be sourced to the specific episode. But again, in the current case of the Rick Grimes article, it encourages this episode-by-episode approach which is far too much detail that we want. This goes back to the issue that articles on characters and the like should be highlighting the out-of-universe details with the plot summary only to provide key summaries for helping to understand that. --Masem (t) 19:27, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

I tend to align with Erik's suggestion that taking an approach that we used with Infobox Film, where there is a guide on the parameters could be helpful. Won't go so far as to say that every IU parameter is useless, because I don't believe that. I just don't believe that the majority are useful or appropriate, or that they inherently provide essential information about a fictional character. I think exceptions exist, but most IU parameters should be cautioned against use for the sake of just having them. As a fan of a show, I can argue for tons of IU information about a character being "essential" because I've watched the show and can explain how it impacts them. As an objective observer, I can look at a character and realize that without the context for those relationships, their presence is not "essential". I have always just to go by the rule of thumb that if you have to explain why they are essential, then they aren't essential.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

I do not think the table is accurate regarding "Name of the individuals who portrayed the character" filled in as No for VG. It is often very useful to know which actor or actress portray the character, more so for recent video games. Some examples where it is useful to include: Nathan Drake, Elena Fisher, Chloe Frazer, John Marston, Arthur Morgan.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 19:47, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

I would agree about the video games and portrayals, because the voice actor is still that...an actor. I would draw the line at "other languages". I think that is unnecessary infoboxes and just fluff that isn't relevant.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:17, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Before we start attacking specific parameters, I'd like to do a couple things: 1) research what the "undefined" parameters are being set to in the wild (using Bambot output or similar), 2) establish whether we want to attack it parameter by parameter at a high level (i.e. do we want to categorically keep some parameters/toss parameters, or is everything fair game for a full analysis) and 3) decide finally to hack on each of the parameters that we agree deserve closer examination. One other thing I've been mulling is whether we want to get wider input with an RFC of some sort which of those directions we should go, or if it will be an RFC that decides the final state of each parameter. Thoughts welcome on path forward. --Izno (talk) 21:46, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

(Commenting from mobile so no idea how it will fit layout. Feel free to fix it under Izno's comment). Regarding question no. 2, I'll be in favor of full analysis, which also includes the remaining non-merged templates. However if the discussion will be "Its IU so delete" that will a very boring discussion. Gonnym (talk) 21:57, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

You'll get no where with a "IU info is bad" discussion, because it will become less about the relevance of each individual IU piece and more of a didactic of it is or it isn't. I would like to see what some of these undefined parameters are being used for, as well as how often the defined ones are being used. I think that tells us the scope of use and could help us to see how often are they being used appropriately and how often are they used just to fill them all out (e.g., listing "Human" on a show that doesn't feature aliens, or at least human-looking aliens). I think Erik touched on this before, my feeling is that we should go down each defined parameter and not only determine if it should be included at all, but define how and when that inclusion would likely exist to provide better guidance to editors and help reduce edit warring over a template that gives no direction.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:11, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

This type of guidance absolutely should be developed, no question. That is a worthwhile exercise. But, the bulk of issues when it comes to IU information in infoboxes is because it is new editors and IPs adding the information without any knowledge nor incentive to find this guidance. If there is a blank "species=" field in the infobox (as the case of a show involving humans with zero scifi/alien elements), they'll fill this in; blank or omitted infobox fields draw these types of edits like moths to light. We should at the same type as this guidance, eliminate fields that really have minimal importance even for casual fans of a work. --Masem (t) 15:10, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

First an last parameters

Can the first parameter be deprecated? It is not so useful anyway since there is first_minor and first_major. Ditto with last parameter. --Kailash29792 (talk) 05:06, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Automatically italicize series name in disambiguated titles

Proposing this change to automatically italicize the series name in parentheticals. It takes the |series= parameter, delinks it to raw output, then passes it to {{italic title}}. This change is currently up in the template sandbox, and test results can be viewed at the Template:Infobox character/testcases page and this revision and this revision of live articles. Covers articles that aren't using DISPLAYTITLE. -- Netoholic @ 19:25, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

TemplateData format type

@IceWelder: please explain the accessibility issue this presents. This is the first time I'm hearing of this. --Gonnym (talk) 10:53, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Excessive spaces make editing on small screens -- especially mobile devices -- needlessly cluttered. The previous format was also several spaces longer than the longest parameter name, which only added to the problem. Furthermore, certain external editors/fonts treat the width of whitespace and other characters differently, making for a zig-zag mess with extraneous spacing. The long format has no real benefit for desktop users, either, and the text remains perfectly readable in block format. We should not make the VisualEditor enforce bad formatting. Regards, IceWelder [✉] 11:12, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

What is the difference between editing a long sentence on a small screen and this? The line still wraps the same. Please provide a specific WP:ACCESS problem, because as of now your arguments are personal preference arguments. Gonnym (talk) 11:34, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

The difference is that one of these scenarios, which you also seem to understand as a problem, can be easily avoided. I will also note that the problem takes effect once someone uses the VisualEditor, i.e. someone who does not even see the problem while editing causes a problem for those that do. WP:ACCESS only deals with web accessibility, e.g. for those visually impaired, so you will not find anything in regard to ease of editing on mobile there. The closest to a guideline I could find is the Wikipedia:TemplateData/Tutorial, which reads:

A further option "format" determines how the wikitext code for the template will be formatted when it is saved by the VisualEditor. This can have the options "format": "inline" (the default) or "format": "block". ... This option ["block"] may be preferable for very complex templates like infoboxes which have multiple parameters.

It makes no mention of custom formatting (such as your personal preference), possibly on purpose. It would, frankly, make for at least some uniformity. Regards, IceWelder [✉] 12:10, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Narrators as voice actors / "voiced by"

Perhaps you folks can help out on a trivial matter which has led to an edit war. User:Horseradishy insists that narrators (in this case, Ringo Starr and later Michael Angelis) should not be included as voice actors in the infobox of a TV show character, namely The Fat Controller. His rationale of "Narrators are not relevant to voice acting a specific character" makes no sense to me, nor has he provided any WikiProject guideline on this when asked repeatedly.

In the TV show Thomas & Friends, Starr (seasons 1–2) and Angelis (seasons 3–16) served as both the narrator and voice of all characters. Therefore, I believe they should be listed under "voiced by" in the infobox of The Fat Controller. This template (voice = "Name of the individuals who voiced the character") makes no mention of omitting narrators. It's self-explanatory—that would be Starr and Angelis who voiced him. Feedback would be appreciated as neither WP:EWN, WP:DRN, nor User:Horseradishy at his talk page have been of any help whatsoever. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 22:52, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't think that voice acting would be considered the same as "Narration". How are they actually credited though?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:08, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

"Narrated by" in the scrolling credits—it is just the one guy voicing everyone, plus narrating. So they are literally the voice of that character (The Fat Controller) as well. Angelis, in particular, used to put on a different accent when voicing him. That's why I am of the firm belief that they should be listed under the voice= parameter. Thoughts? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 23:26, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

First and last parameters

I would greatly appreciate if these parameters were deprecated since they are redundant to first_major, first_minor, first_issue, first_date, last_major, last_minor, last_issue and last_date. Also they are not properly supported by this infobox. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:54, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by they are not properly supported by this infobox; they are used and in the /doc. There is nothing wrong with similarly-named parameters (I would argue they're not "redundant" because they display differently), but if a consensus of responders agrees with you I can certainly remove them. Primefac (talk) 14:03, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Kailash29792 I disagree. They are supported parameters on this infobox. AND, in my opinion are better overall. The Optimistic One (talk) 00:15, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Favre1fan93, your opinion is greatly appreciated. Kailash29792 (talk) 01:39, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

I would suggest |first/last_major/minor= and |first/last_date= be used in the majority of cases, since they preformat the information based on WP:MAJORWORKS and WP:MINORWORK. However, |first= and |last= shouldn't be depreciated, because they should still be used if either of the major/minor parameters don't accurately portray the info as intended (which I find a bit hard to believe, but they should still exist). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:15, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: And in which cases are |first/last_major/minor= better? All I can think of would be for a comic book character, where it could list the issue, series and publication date. Aside from that, it just makes things more bloated. Do we really need to include the full date of the characters debut film/episode/game? Also if a character debuts on September 1st, its only usually the US/Canada because in other countries there's tape delay or the Timezone is into the next day. The Optimistic One (talk) 19:00, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

I believe with all character instances, these parameters can be useful. The date can just be the year, I don't think things need to include the day and month. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:03, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

The heading "in universe information"

The term "universe" is not appropriate for most fiction, and sounds fannish ("The Star Trek universe", "the Buffyverse" etc). It grates with articles like David Copperfield (character) for example. I propose changing the header to "character information". MaxBrowne2 (talk) 22:14, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

But all fields in the infobox, even those above that heading, are information about the given character. What's wrong with "In-universe information"? David Copperfield (character) looks perfectly fine to me, where the heading clearly demarcates from what is true in the world we live in ("Created by Charles Dickens") what is true only in the fictional world of the novel. "Character information" wouldn't quite do that. It sounds like you're retroactively applying the connotation of the modern usage of "universe" to "in-universe", which I don't think is well justified. Absent a better alternative (I guess "Intradiegetic information" or something could avoid your problem but then no one would understand it), I don't see anything wrong with "in-universe". Nardog (talk) 22:39, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I can't corroborate that the term fictional universe sounds inappropriate, especially given that's where our (admittedly sub-par) article on the subject resides. Also, I don't know what you mean by "fannish". I'd bet "Diegetic information" is alao accurate, but I'd also guess that phrase is less common than "in-universe". — Fourthords | =Λ= | 23:28, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Well David Copperfield exists in a "universe" only in the sense that it's a work of fiction. It has a realistic contemporary setting and no elements of science fiction or fantasy. The term "universe" strongly suggests a science fiction/fantasy setting to me. David Copperfield was a random example, I could equally have used Natasha Rostova. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 00:05, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Well David Copperfield exists in a "universe" only in the sense that it's a work of fiction. That's …precisely it, yeah.

As for conflating the word "universe" with sci-fi/fantasy, that may just be an unintentional connection you've made? All works of fiction exist in their own fictional universe, and sometimes multiple works share that same universe; several (if not all) of the Law & Order shows share a fictional universe, as do the Far Cry series of video games, and neither is sci-fi or fantasy. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 02:06, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Well our article fictional universe certainly suggests that fictional universes normally include elements of science fiction and fantasy. It is a recent term, and seems to have arisen from the world of comic books and fan fiction. That's why it seems inappropriate when applied to traditional fiction. You will never find the term in any scholarly work on a classic novel. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 02:23, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

There is a difference between a fictional universe that is one of the core subjects of the fiction itself, and the broader fictional universes that every work of fiction takes place in. With regard to the latter meaning, which is the matter at hand, you are correct to note that "fictional universe" is not used when discussing this subject. And no one here has suggested actuality using that phrase, either. fourthords used that wording (with the "fictional" epithet attached to universe) only to help explain to you what is meant here by the word "universe" (in "in-universe"). The likely reason this term is unfamiliar to you is that it's not a topic that comes up extremely often; however, when it does arise, "universe"/"in-universe" truly are the standard terms for discussing this concept. As for "fictional data", as mentioned below, that would, I think, lead to widespread confusion - that just isn't a term that sees use in this topic area. Firejuggler86 (talk) 04:58, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

While I don't see an issue with 'in universe', I also don't see an issue with "Fictional data" or similar. --Izno (talk) 04:19, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 6 July 2021

Please add support for embedding templates like "Infobox officeholder" within this one (for cases of fictional politicians/mayors/characters in office). Found that embed wasn't useable within this when attempting to have Mayor Adam West's office details appear in his character infobox. Thank you. Zinnober9 (talk) 00:44, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. A major change like this would require consensus to be established first. (I for one am concerned that enabling embedding "real life" infoboxes into fictional character ones could lead to a creep towards inclusion of indiscriminate in-universe information.) firefly ( t · c ) 08:26, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

You make a valid point with that concern, and I won't pursue the embed request. Zinnober9 (talk) 17:04, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Add a "Latest" parameter?

We have parameters for first and last appearance, but given the nature of fictional works, it is frequently possible for the "last" appearance of a character to turn out not to really be the "last" we ever see of that character. I propose that we add a "Latest" parameter for long-established characters that are currently appearing in some media, which may or may not be their "last" appearance. BD2412 T 04:05, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

We should just rename "last" to "latest" here, that's the easiest fix. IceWelder [✉] 09:04, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I think that it should be one of those parameters that's either/or. You can either use |last= or |latest= depending on which one is more appropriate in each case, but you can't use both obviously. —El Millo (talk) 16:45, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. 2A02:C7F:861D:6A00:75B7:ADBC:76E9:823F (talk) 13:36, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

This just seems like a semantic argument over "Last" vs. "Latest". I think "Last" probably solves both queries evenly. "Last" can be "Latest", but "Latest" cannot be "Last". The reason we use "Last" has been for that reason, because it just means this was the last time they were seen; that could be "most recent" or it could mean "final". If you use "latest", then you're only able to imply "most recent". It does not, and would never mean "final".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:39, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

We will likely never need a "final" parameter since fictional characters can come and go as the IP holders wish. "Last" is supposed to mean "most recent" here but, as BD2412's comment shows, this is ambiguous. The problem could be easily fixed by adding two letters. IceWelder [✉] 14:17, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Some characters that are part of other pre-established universes. Will it be the "last" time you ever see Clark Kent from Smallville, maybe...maybe not. Unless there is news that someone decides to "revive" an entire show, it's safe to say that the characters of Lost are in their final appearance. Again, "Latest" implies that there is likely going to be more appearances. Most TV shows that end do NOT get additional usage for characters after their final episode. You're arguing that a fractional minority of cases is a common event and thus we should change the infobox wording to meet a need that is not really prevalent, and that is covered by the term "Last".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:52, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

"Latest" implies that there is likely going to be more appearances.

– How so? It just means "most recent". It is objectively true that "The End" featured the most recent appearance of Jack Shephard, regardless of whether there will ever be another appearance. If "last" can mean both "latest" and "final", it should not be up to the reader to interpret which one is meant in each instance. IceWelder [✉] 15:13, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that "Last" should be used if there's clearly more to come. According to the Cambridge Dictionary, the definition of last is "after everyone or everything else". I think "last" should be used only if there's at least some indication that there will be no more appearances. On the other hand, "latest" does seem to imply there is more to come, for example Cambridge lists "modern" and "up to date" as synonyms. We could add a "Latest" parameter where you could use either "Last" or "Latest" depending on which one is more appropriate, but I still doubt it's a good idea since, for example, if a series is ongoing, the parameter on the main character's infobox would have to be updated every time a new episode comes out, which seems unnecessary to me. Let's take Jon Snow, thinking exclusively of the TV show (spoilers if someone still doesn't know). With "latest", the parameter would have to be updated after almost every episode. With "last", it would've only been updated twice: when he "died", which at the time seemed final if I recall correctly, that would have to be removed when he was resurrected, and then the parameter would be filled again with the last episode of the series. —El Millo (talk) 16:03, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

References

As I've just had to revert someone who was mass-removing this parameter yet again because "it's doubtful the character will never appear again", as much as I hate to give in on it since it's not wrong, I am planning to make the proposed updates for both parameters to work but with the primary and label to be "Latest". It's shocking to me how many people don't understand that "latest" is one of the definitions for "last", as in "last year we went to the beach" doesn't mean it was the "final year ever", or "last week", and so forth. But it's causing disruption since people don't apparently know this. -- ferret (talk) 13:32, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

It certainly doesn't seem like there is consensus for that change. Someone mass removing something on those grounds does not mean that they should. If you're talking about a character in an on-going series, then you're right in not using "last". If it's a series that has ended, then you should assume that's the final appearance until it changes (I'm not talking about the end of a season, but an end to an entire series). We don't need to update weekly some new title for every issue, tv episode, etc. a character has appeared in.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:54, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Well the change is queued in the sandbox and whoever wants can implement. Mass reverting every time this happens is getting a tad old IMO. It seems some in this discussion are taking "latest" to mean "update every week" but I've not encountered that myself. Is that an problem in other spaces (comics, tv)? Again, "last" also means "latest", so people can interpret it to mean "update every week" too. -- ferret (talk) 16:31, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

We just need to clarify it further in the template documentation. We need to put that "last" is for what seems like it will be the character's last appearance ever. If the series or franchise ends, if the character dies (in most cases), etc. That doesn't change the fact that the character may resurrect or that the series may get a revival some time in the future, and then we would have to remove or update the parameter. But "latest" doesn't come with any finality so, were we to change it to "latest", it should have to be updated with every new film and with every new episode that comes out featuring the character. As Bignole said, someone making mass changes isn't any indication that we should do something about it other than be more clear in the template documentation, it doesn't mean that the editor doing the mass changes is correct. —El Millo (talk) 17:33, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Absolutely should not enforce a "last = final" definition. People treating it this way is resulting in them purging infoboxes of this information entirely when it's perfectly applicable. -- ferret (talk) 17:43, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Why not? We just need a clear definition of it. It's not when there's absolutely no doubt in the whole universe that it will be final, it's when there's no clear indication that it will continue. no new season announced, no new movie announced, no new game announced, the character dies, things like that. Of course it can be discussed in some cases, but what I'm getting at is that we don't end up in a situation that it is getting updated every week, or that the parameter is filled when another appearance is already expected or confirmed. —El Millo (talk) 17:52, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't think I'm following you. Last = "final, latest". That's the definition. If you specifically note in the documentation that "last = final only", then nearly every single use of the infobox would purge it's use. We can never say with certainty that it's the "final, without a doubt, appearance". You might as well remove the field. Even the death of a character within an episode, issue, game, etc, doesn't provide finality for our purposes because flash backs and prequels are a constant thing. -- ferret (talk) 17:55, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

I explicitly said that it's not when we can say with certainty that it's the "final, without a doubt, appearance". It's when there's no clear indication that there will be more. If there's no clear indication of a new appearance in the future. Again, if there's no sequel announced, no new season announced, or no other appearance announced. If the character dies, and it doesn't take place in a universe like, e.g. Dragon Ball Z, where characters consistently appear after having died, then we can safely fill the parameter. The important thing here is that it doesn't mean latest, because in that case we would have to update it with every new appearance even if we knew for sure that there would be more. —El Millo (talk) 18:04, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Well consider me opposed to that. I'm basically here in opposition to that from the start. Last = "1) Final, 2) latest". My frustration this morning was people doing drive by deletion of the parameter based on the "it only means final" argument for multiple franchise characters at a time. -- ferret (talk) 18:10, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

So you think that the latest appearance of a character should be included in the parameter even if a sequel, new season, or any kind of further appearance is already announced? —El Millo (talk) 18:18, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but looking at your reverts, it seems it was only Mario characters and Donkey Kong. Seeing that these characters have appeared and continue to appear in game after game after game, this seems like an exception to be discussed in particular rather than a common case. —El Millo (talk) 18:23, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Repeated (edit conflict) - Short answer, yes. Long answer, within the video game space, we treat it as last (definition 2, latest) past appearance. A future appearance is not the "latest". It hasn't happened yet. Until the release of that next property, we don't update it. To reiterate, "latest" is one of the definition of the word "last". The issue of blanking comes from people who don't seem to know that.

Response after ECs: Games for these characters are often years apart. We have always done this. Again, to reiterate, "last means latest". This isn't really debatable, it's in every dictionary I've double checked. -- ferret (talk) 18:28, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Of course the future appearance wouldn't be the one included, what I'm saying is not to include the latest one if there's another one already confirmed to be coming. What we can do here is to clarify how they should be treated in different media, if we do anything at all, to be decided mostly by the members interested in each different medium. Because I'm talking mostly with films and TV series in mind, and you're talking about video games, where the time betweeen installments coming out is much longer. —El Millo (talk) 18:49, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

As I said, "Last" can mean "latest" or "final", but "Latest" can never mean "final" (It could be final, but it doesn't mean that). Yes, it is a problem in TV and other serialized media that would use this template. I see that a lot of the reverts you've done are in the video game world. I would argue that "last" is the proper parameter to use, because most video game characters don't see new games every year, month, week.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:32, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

To be clear, I actually agree with you but I am so tired of reverting removals. On the flip side, several other infoboxes do state latest rather than last. -- ferret (talk) 17:43, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Usage?

From above, it seems the form of media needs clarified in documentation. Areas that don't deal with frequent episodic content use "last" to mean "latest", while areas that do use it to mean "final" to avoid repetitive updates every week. My suggestion then would be that the field's documentation be specific that "last appearance" should be specific to the most recent new property. I.e. a "TV Show", not an "TV Show Episode", a "Comic Series", not a "Comic Series issue". Maybe this won't work either for those areas, but it's my initial suggestion. -- ferret (talk) 19:34, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

In TV that doesn't work, most characters only appear on one TV show, so the first and last appearance would be one and the same and wouldn't provide any information. The |first= and |last= parameters have to include episodes. —El Millo (talk) 19:40, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 10 August 2021

I can upgrade it to make it like relatives like soap characters. (Eastenders, Emmerdale and so on) GThomas2000 (talk) 11:57, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Nardog (talk) 12:06, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Add age field

Can we add an Age or birthdate field to the template? Because for many characters we know the birthdate and age. -Artanisen (talk) 02:01, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Age was removed from this template years ago. I believe it was considered trivial, inconsistent and often original research. Also, fiction exists in the perpetual present.— TAnthony^Talk 02:05, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 21 April 2022

Please remove "firstgame" from the paramater list as this is 1. already mentioned above. 2, is not notable without the inclusion of firstfilm or firstbook, ect. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 14:52, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:13, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

@Pppery Did i do it right? PerryPerryD Talk To Me 15:53, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

You formatted the request correctly; the problem is that I'm not seeing any consensus that this parameter should be removed, and not willing to remove it based just on your say-so. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:55, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Oh, The consensus is that it appears to be an un-used parameter, it can easily be replaced with the "first" parameter. There is no reason to include a firstgame parameter without a firstbook or firstmovie parameter, the firstgame parameter is only used on videogame articles, and even then, first_major would normally be used. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 16:02, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Opposed firstgame exists due to the merger of the Infobox video game character infobox, and is in use on video game character articles. Rationale that firstbook/firstmovie don't exist isn't really grounds to remove. We use this to differentiate in cases where a character first appeared outside of a video game, though is generally known for the later game appearance. -- ferret (talk) 17:54, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

I see, thank you for letting me know. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 17:56, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

'age', 'height' and 'weight' requested to be added

Since the template contains data values for 'religion', 'weapon', 'gender', I feel that 'age', 'height', 'weight' would be valid to have included as well. The article Sonic the Hedgehog (character) has age, height and weight added as custom fields due to this limitation.

Perhaps having data fields such as height_cm, weight_kg, weight_lb would make it easier to input as well, so for Sonic that would be |height_cm = 100 |weight_kg = 35, and the template takes care of the proper formatting. This ensures that the fields are always converted.
Liggliluff (talk) 19:41, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose These parameters would be trivial cruft in my opinion. It would incite the addition of more unsourced in-universe information to the infobox. Age is also inconsistent and fictional articles should be written in 'perpetual present' tense. If the weight and height parameters are really needed for an individual character (and are sourced) then I believe the custom parameters are best here. – Meena • 19:53, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Genre

Has there been any discussion on a "genre" parameter? This is present on related infoboxes such as {{Infobox fictional location}}, {{Infobox fictional organization}}, and {{Infobox fictional race}}. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:27, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Last appearance

I would like to seek clarification on whether the |last= parameter (which displays Last appearance) refers to a character's final appearance or most recent appearance. If it's the former, the parameter should be changed to Final appearance, and if it's the latter, it should be changed to Most recent appearance or Latest appearance. I've always assumed the former, but the ambiguity of the wording has just been brought to my attention, which makes me wonder whether I've been wrong the whole time. The template documentation wasn't very helpful either. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:01, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Just to note, I realize this has been discussed before in the archives, but none of those discussions ended with a clear-cut answer, and the template documentation is still ambiguous. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:11, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

You could argue...both. With fictional characters, we never say "final" because it implies they could never be seen again and that isn't accurate when it comes to fiction. There were linguistic arguments about "latest", as well as whether or not that means you should update a series regulars infobox every week with a new episode title. Ultimately I think we just decided to leave it as it is and understand that "last"/"most recent"/"final" are being used interchangeably.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:20, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

But they're not interchangeable, the final appearance is always the latest appearance but the latest appearance is not necessarily the final one. The word "Last" means some editors will treat it as meaning the final appearance and others the latest one, which leads to disputes and possibly edit-wars. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:27, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

I've always treated it as "Latest" as in most recent (Last Friday does not mean "Final Friday Ever"), as did most of WP:VG, but after Infobox video game character was merged, someone went through and started removing it from all of our articles arguing that "Last" always meant "final". -- ferret (talk) 23:04, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

In addition to its ambiguity, I normally consider that it shouldn't be included if it's already given the fictional character will have another appearance. It does not need to be known that it will be its final appearance, because it can never be truly known, but if the character's next appearance is already known, if it is to be in a show's next season for example, or in the third film in a trilogy, it seems disingenuous to add its latest appearance as a "last appearance". —El Millo (talk) 23:09, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

If we can agree that "last" means "latest" in this case and not "final", why not change the parameter to say that? InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:27, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Because "latest" may prompt editors to always put the latest appearance, meaning they'll permanently update the parameter for ongoing TV series and franchises. Perhaps, though, it wouldn't happen as much as I worry it might. —El Millo (talk) 01:26, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that's primarily an issue only for on-going television shows. If that particular case needs a stronger rule (such as latest "series" versus "episode"), that can be written into documentation. Most other forms of media, such as video games, films and books, don't have such rapid update issues. They've all been stripped of this information due to the "but TV episodes" arguments. I gave up arguing it last time it came up. Regardless, the only way for random editors to know the the "latest vs last and don't update TV episodes!" is through reading the documentation, even today. Last does not mean final. So it still happens, and "latest" is even a parameter name for that same field. (Strike: Used to be in templates that got merged) -- ferret (talk) 02:13, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

The documentation doesn't say whether "last appearance" means "latest" or "final". It just says Last appearance of the character. That's why I started this thread, because the doc didn't give me an answer to my question. But even if the documentation is updated, editors who do not read the documentation (such as IPs) will very likely continue to try removing last appearances based on the impression that they mean "final", unless the displayed wording is altered. To be honest, I don't really buy the "rapid update" argument (I mean, isn't that what the parameter is for in the first place?), but to address that problem we could just get rid of the |last_minor= parameter. InfiniteNexus (talk) 02:50, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't think the solution is to just remove the parameter. I think, when used correctly, it is a valid and useful bit of information. Coming to a consensus here and including what the parameter should be used for in the template documentation would give us the tool to simply revert whatever attempt at a "rapid update" without much trouble, while ending with the ambiguity or at least addressing it and narrowing it. I formally propose we consider it a "last known appearance" of sorts, without changing the name of the parameter. If it's known the character will appear again, then the parameter shouldn't be filled. If it's an ongoing TV series, whether there's a current season releasing episodes week to week or there are is an upcoming season where the character's future appearance is reasonably expected and/or confirmed, then the parameter shouldn't be filled. If there's a future film in a franchise where the character's appearance is reasonably expected and/or confirmed, then the parameter shouldn't be filled. If there are no next seasons or films announced where that is the case, then it can be filled with the character's last appearance. —El Millo (talk) 03:10, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

So basically, "don't fill it in unless we don't know if they will appear in the future"? I can live with that. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:51, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

To complicate matters, if we take things that are prequels, like Better Call Saul or Andor, we can have characters that will have their last appearance in the broadcast history in the prequel, but narratively their last appearance came from the original work. And yes, I can see both interpretations to be possibly valid for different reasons. --Masem (t) 03:36, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Since the parameter isn't under "In-universe information", it's safe to say we're talking about real-world chronology, i.e. broadcast history. But again, leaving the purpose of the parameter ambiguous is not a good idea if we want articles to be consistent. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:51, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

I think real life should definitely take precedent over in-universe chronology, as there's not only prequels but flashbacks and flashforwards to worry about. —El Millo (talk) 04:40, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Anyone else in favor of El Millo's proposal above? Don't let this be another discussion that just ends without a clear resolution... InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:40, 17 October 2022 (UTC)