Template talk:Infobox comics character/Archive 1

Archive 1

Is this template needed?

Is all of this sub-trivial information necessary? This isn't the Official Handbook to the Marvel Universe; we don't need to list that the Invisible Woman has an unnamed aunt or that Gambit was briefly involved with the Crimson Pirates. If the information is pertinent to the character's history, it should be mentioned in the actual article text and given context; if not, it shouldn't be presented at all. -Sean Curtin 01:28, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

This template was on the checklist of things to create as part of WikiProject Comics. So, I created it. Minor details should indeed be left out, and I'll do that in the future. --brian0918™ 01:33, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I've added 'notable' to a couple of fields to make it clear that the info shouldbe a summary, not exhaustive. -- Vodex 08:39, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

I think having the summary information is helpful, as long as it is a summary/short list of reasonably important info to the characters (As opposed to adding stuff that's never kept to, e.g. height, weight, power levels, aliases used in passing, etc). Especially, in relation to the "Notable Powers" section of the infobox, given the occasional propensity of some people to add a bunch of psuedo-scientific guff that either has no basis in the comics or is copyvio from the Official Handbook/etc to the main article "Powers" sections (see Hulk (comics) - powers for a particuarly bad example that's actually broken out into it's own article. And I seem to recall it being worse at one stage before the breakout...) -- SoM 22:22, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, that's essentially the point that I was making. Gambit refers to Gambit's alliance with the Crimson Pirates (which lasted for about one or two issues, tops) and his alias of "Le Diable Blanc" (ditto); are either of these relevant to the character as a whole? Invisible Woman gives us several context-free aliases; anyone reading that and seeing that she was once called "Malice, Mistress of Hate" or "Susan Benjamin" either won't have the slightest idea of what that means or refers to, unless they've already read the stories that these aliases came from (or any Official Handbook entries that explain said aliases). That article also uses some pretty egregious pseudo-science: "Psionic manipulation of ambient cosmic energy to mentally bend light for invisibility. Her body cells produce an unknown form of energy that she can mentally project around other people or things for invisibility. She can also mentally project protective force fields originating from hyper-space." The superheroboxes are, thus far, either redundant with the article (telling us the character's real name and first appearance when these facts are given in the intro paragraph), or are uninformative infodumps that provide data without telling the reader what that data means. -Sean Curtin 23:13, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the powers you've mentioned above can be explained in physical terms. Should they just be left out? What's the point of comic book superheroes then? --brian0918™ 23:28, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No, the guff should be left out. For this specific example, "Invisibility, force-field generation" for the box is quite sufficient (in other cases, you might need to phrase it as "Ability to XXX", but that's it). The powers section in the main article doesn't need to be quite so concise, but describe the effects of the powers, not irrelevant pseudo-science about how they're generated.

And there should be nothing in the box that may be misleading out-of-context without it being in the main article in expanded form SoM 23:56, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Also, adding these lengthy boxes en masse is not a "minor edit". -Sean Curtin 23:13, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

I'm just modest I guess, or I always forget to uncheck that box when necessary. --brian0918™ 23:28, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

In theory I agree with the idea of an infobox, but there are a few things that bother me about this one. This infobox is pretty huge on a 1024x768 monitor and overpowers the text of the article. This sheer size of the box also creates a whole whack of problems with regard to formatting and inclusion of other images unless it's a really long article. The colours for the infobox serve no purpose because someone would have to visit Wikipedia:WikiProject_Comics to realize what they mean. The infobox tries to summarize too much information, eg. previous affiliations and relatives. I agree with Sean that if information is relevant to the character's history, it should be mentioned in the actual article text and given context. I'd prefer to see a small simple info box that contains a good image of the character, character name, publisher, first appearance, and creators. (Sort of like the top half of the current superherobox.) --NormanEinstein 16:43, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

300 pixels is way wide for an infobox. Template:Albumbox is 225 pixels, I think, and the taxoboxes (which I think are the oldest and most well-developed infoboxes) are 250 pixels. If we're having trouble making the template skinnier, then perhaps we need to rethink its design. grendel|khan 20:53, 2005 Apr 28 (UTC)

I've had thoughts on that score for a while. How about this? - SoM 22:43, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wolverine #17 John Byrne, artist.
Wolverine
Real name	James Howlett
Publisher	Marvel Comics
First  appearance	The Incredible Hulk #181
Created by	John Romita, Sr. Len Wein
Stats Status active Affiliations X-Men Previous affiliations Secret Defenders, Devil's Brigade, Four Horsemen, First (Alpha) Flight, Weapon X, Canadian Parachute Battalion Notable aliases Logan, Death, Patch, Weapon X Notable relatives Viper (ex-wife) Notable powers Healing factor Adamantium-coated bones, including retractable claws Enhanced senses

Err, I dunno. Removing the tables from the infoboxes isn't that great a solution because then it makes our infobox look different from all the other infoboxes on wikipedia. A similar change was shot down on Wikipedia:WikiProject Arcade games. I think we should keep the tables unless all the other wikiprojects agree that the borderless tables are the way to go. I kind of think its important to have consistency across all wikipedia and wikiproject topics. However, maybe we could collapse all the inner tables? Something like this. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 18:16, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

Wolverine #17 John Byrne, artist.
Wolverine
Real name	James Howlett
Publisher	Marvel Comics
First appearance	The Incredible Hulk #181
Created by	John Romita, Sr. Len Wein
Statistics
Status	active
Affiliations	X-Men
Previous affiliations	Secret Defenders, Devil's Brigade, Four Horsemen, First (Alpha) Flight, Weapon X, Canadian Parachute Battalion
Notable aliases	Logan, Death, Patch, Weapon X
Notable relatives	Viper (ex-wife)
Notable powers	Healing factor Adamantium-coated bones, including retractable claws Enhanced senses

Aliases

Should the "Aliases" field be including catchphrases like "The World's Mightiest Mortal", "The Amazing Amazon", "The Pliable Paladin"? --Paul A 04:31, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

They ought to be in the article text telling the reader that (for example) "Superman is often called the Man of Steel and the Man of Tomorrow", not put into the template. -Sean Curtin 02:44, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I think the definition of an alias is that it's an alternate name chosen by the subject and not something that others started calling him. That's a nickname. dfg 02:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Equipment/Paraphernalia section?

In some cases, a character's equipment/tools/gadgets etc doesn't make sense in the Power box. Should a 'notable equipment' field be added?

• Is this overkill?
• How would it affect current templates?

--Vodex 22:13, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

A generic "Notes" or "Other" section could be added for any other comments. -- BRIAN0918  22:26, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That would be open to abuse, though, filling the section up completely

My first choice would be to leave it for now, but I'd prefer a specific Equipment section to a "notes" section. Anything which needed to go in there should just be in the main text - SoM 22:31, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The Nature of Relatives

A list of things must be determined about the relatives section. To sum:

• Do clones count?
• What is the proper formatting for relatives that are also superheroes or supervillains? Is is it "Real Name (Alter-ego, relation, status)", or "Real Name (relation, status, Alter-ego)", or something else?
• How far should they go? Should they include grandparents, aunts and uncles, or what? Should they include people not related by blood, outside of wives and husbands?

Apostrophe 05:15, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This is all IMO, but...

• Yes

--El benito 16:38, 26 May 2006 (UTC):*Not sure on the formatting

• I would go with "people who have, or could support, their own entry," rather than a complete list - ergo the "notable" - SoM 11:45, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Seconded. dfg 02:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

For the formatting, I would just stick with Character name (relationship) and put deceased inside the parentheses as well if they're deceased. (ex: Sabretooth (father) )-- BRIAN0918  13:20, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You are forgetting alternate reality genetic parents. --Chris Griswold 18:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

In the interests of pushing the discussion further, I draw your attention to the ultimate acid test: the Hyperstorm family tree! As a challenge for us to draw up some guidelines, I've added in any character with their own article who holds any position on Cousin chart, including clones and alternate realities/timelines... and an adopted son from a deleted future timeline of a clone of the half-cyborg son from the never-quite-anulled marriage of the clone of the grandmother with the genetic grandfather. All I need to do now is whip up an article for Scotty from the Mutant X comic book and then we'll be able to invent a whole new world for the relation of an alternate reality son created by an affair of the maternal grandmother with a paternal grand-uncle! weeeeee coffee! --El benito 16:38, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

You missed X-Man (Nate Grey). - SoM 17:40, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Ha! Good point. He's in there now. I miss anyone else? Bueller? Bueller? --El benito 21:56, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Kang the Conqueror? Immortus? Iron Lad? --Chris Griswold 01:23, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Oooh tempting, but probably not doable since it has't been proved :( --El benito 04:40, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

what about gambit? in x-men the end it was shown that gambit is a partial clone of cyclops now since "the end" titles aren't neccasarily considered canon wouldn't it be atleat an alternate/timeline reality releative? --scorpionspupil 13:52, 2 september 2006 (UTC)

Well, I have to admit that was more than a little bemused that the relatives field had gotten disabled completely as fruit of the Hyperstorm experiment, but it's time to make this work again. I say keep it specifically to parents/siblings/offspring. No grandparents, uncles or aunts, unless they fulfill the role of a parent (Aunt May). From the superbox, I also say we cut out all clones and alt universes. Those can be mentioned in article. Include a section on relations if necessary, but the superbox needs to be limited to the type of information you'd find on a baseball card (which I think is the best way to think of it). Use normal names via piped links. Curious minds can click or read the body of the article. We either have to keep this very strict, or we're going to have to follow through with the preliminary judgement and just strike the field altogether. --El benito 05:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Color Scheme

I'm a little confused about the use of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Color scheme, particularly in regards to America's Best Comics. ABC used to be an imprint of Image comics, and is now part of DC. For a series like Promethea, the series was primarily under Image. Should I use the Image or DC color? --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 19:15, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

You might just want to use the "Other" color. --brian0918™ 19:22, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, there was some precedent on the Tom Strong page for using the DC Comics color, so I figure as long as all the ABC comics use the same convention, it's probably fine. Thanks. -DropDeadGorgias (talk) 19:59, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

infobox borderless

Has the "infobox borderless" class been changed? There's something pretty funny going on with it's white-space. Until I find out what, the main class for the table will stay on the old one. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 03:17, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Ever heard of trying to get consensus for major changes? - SoM 03:23, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I forgot the width parameter! That's what went wrong! Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 04:10, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Image centering?

What happened that caused the image to be on the left as opposed to the center, like it was before? --DrBat 00:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I've reverted the most recent change. That seems to have fixed it. --DrBat 01:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Don't understand how making the image parameter optional broke the centering in Internet Explorer, but then IE's CSS rendering is, and always has been, screwed up badly. Showed up fine in Firefox. *makes note to test in IE next time...^ - SoM 05:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Statistics?

Hello, I came across this template on the Batman page, and see that the bottom half goes under the unlikely heading "Statistics". May I ask you to please think of another heading, guys? The word statistic (and its plural) have several distinct meanings; under none of them can "real name" or "special powers" be considered examples. I do appreciate that popularly (and erroneously), the word is sometimes employed in this way, but it shouldn't be in an encyclopedia. Thanks! —Encephalon 15:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me; any suggestions? dfg 02:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

'Character Information' or 'Additional Information' or ... 'Vital Statistics'? -- Ipstenu 15:17, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I just changed it to "characteristics". --Doradus 12:54, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Non-vertical lists and punctuation

Me and User:Lesfer think it would be a good idea, both practically (saves space) and aesthetically (less white space, especially since we want short powers descriptions in the Infobox), to change the template's Notable Powers section from a vertical list (with all the <br>s in it) to a not-vertical list. We wanna reach consensus on it, too. Also, I believe most manuals of style state there's no need for punctuation at the end of a list such as this. dfg 02:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Alternate Reality in the Super-hero box

i remember there being an official line on alternate reality relatives and teams here but can't find it. relatives (in continuity) are listed and "notable" if they have a page on wikipedia. but what about batman, who lists several of his alternate reality children, plus several out of continuity WWII teams.

his relatives look like this:

Thomas Wayne (father, deceased), Martha Wayne (mother, deceased), Phillip Wayne (uncle and foster father, deceased), Alfred Pennyworth (butler and foster father), Dick Grayson (adopted son), Jason Todd (adopted son), Helena Wayne (alternate reality daughter, deceased), Ibn al Xu'ffasch (alternate reality son), Terry McGinnis (alternate reality biological son)

Not only, is there Earth-Two, and Kingdom Come info, there's continuity from television.

What's the deal? Opinions anyone? ---Exvicious 08:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

SupaBox usage on mult character pages

I'm trying to rough out a page for Mister Fear, who's had 4 different people wear the costume. None of these had particularly different powers or interpretations of the character, but had different identities/debuts/relatives. I can't personally justify splitting the character into 4 separate articles, but if I put in 4 superboxes it doesn't look pretty. I'm not aware of a way to make the superboxes line up with the content subsections.

For another example, consider the Serpent Squad article. Are we going to put a bunch of superboxes in there? How?

--El benito 19:55, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Check out Mister Terrific (comics) 161.38.222.14 04:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

That looks...er terrific, but the difference between Mr Terrific and the 4 Mr Fears is that at least for the moment, there isn't enough notable information to usefully pad the text column until it's as long as or longer than the superbox. I could try adding whitespace to the entries (is that even possible on MediaWiki?), but that would only work well for people with the same text size --El benito 17:11, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

There's not much info in the boxes anyway. i'd just throw in the relevant info in the article. 161.38.222.14 20:50, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Status variable

Declaring that a character "is" alive, dead, inactive, etc., contradicts the MoS guidelines for writing about fiction—fictional stories exist in a perpetual present. The complete lack of context for this description renders it nonsensical as well; a fictional character is depicted as deceased in X work, not actually deceased. I think a much better use of this would be to convert it to stating whether the character is currently being published—is there an ongoing comic book series that features this character? If not ongoing, the last appearance can be given, or perhaps just a statement like "occasionally appearing in JLA." Thoughts? Postdlf 06:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Status should not be included. That is for the article to explain. --Chris Griswold 06:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you've got an excellent point there. I've had problems figuring out what to do with that myself. Dead/alive, active/inactive are very poor descriptors given not just your reasons, but also how comic book characters so often "get better" despite whatever straits we last saw them in (most recently for me The Venture Bros. :D ). I think publishing status and/or last appearance could work, but Chris has a point with just axing the whole damn thing too. --El benito 22:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I was about to bring this up when I saw that it already had been... brought... up. I agree it should be removed, for the same reason we shouldn't use "recently." --Newt ΨΦ

I disagree. With serial fiction, there is a distinction between the archived stories of 10 years ago and the stories that are unfolding now. In ensemble stories such as X-Men, there is also a huge difference between "not currently appearing" (a phase every character goes through from time to time) and "currently dead" (all jokes aside, sometimes comic book death is very permanent). With something as important as "Is this character currently alive or dead?", it's worthwhile to have that fact at the top with the character description. I'm sorry I got in late on this discussion. I was just surprised to see the "status: deceased" tags disappear all of a sudden. WallyCuddeford 08:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I also disagree. I think that A) there is an implication with infoboxes that this is how such and such a character is depicted, and B) that if status is an issue because someone is depicted as dead rather than dead, what about their powers? They don't have those, they are merely depicted as having them. Code name? Real name? Relatives, teams, associations? I may be misunderstanding this, but please clarify how status is different from any other bit of info in these boxes? And if it's not, then either status should be restored under my assumption of A, or these boxes themselves aren't viable, if that makes any sense at all. Darquis 21:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Postdlf had a compromise for the "affiliations" variable that could be applied to all of the questionable variables/fields (and would also make them more informative and out-of-universe) the character's team affiliation would be included with the issues of comic books the character was a memeber of the team. Status could be the same, as could powers, however, this could get rather unwieldy. --22:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

If what he suggested works for affiliations, I'd be willing to go with that for status as well. Basically we're just citing resources in that case. But I can definitely see it getting unweildy..I just dislike this whole out of universe writing as it applies to superboxes.Darquis 00:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I think status could be turned into the current publication status of the character, with a concise explanation: "lead character in ongoing monthly titles Spider-Man, Amazing Spider-Man, and Ultimate-Spider-Man;" team member in monthly title New Avengers;" "Recurring villain in Flash, last seen in #506"; "Not currently published; death portrayed in Mongomangamania #5 (Jun 1987)," "Not currently published; last seen as backup feature in Crack Comics #39 (Mar 1950);" that sort of thing. This should be easy for lead characters; it will be trickier to establish a clear convention for more trivial ones. Maybe we should list out the possibilities, and try to come up with a set of simple terms that can then be elaborated upon by parentheticals? Postdlf 00:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I also disagree about the status box. It should be included. I just came to this page to find out if a particular character was deceased or not. I don't want to read his whole history just for that. For encyclopedic uses, it should be included. scarecroe 15:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I recommend reading the end of the article, then. --Chris Griswold (☏) 09:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I think status is pretty relevant, at least as much so as anyting else going in the boxes right now, even if it can be mercucial at times. To me, it's exactly what type of information the SHB should contain. Darquis 18:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The status may be relavant (and yeah, it really is in a lot of ways), but it's also damned hard to come to a consensus as to what it should be. Depowered, active, inactive, retired, kind of retired, missing, dead, resurrected ... the list of what you can put in is nearly endless, and at that point it ceases to be useful and just gets messy. Unless we can come up with a strict list of what belongs there, it's dead useless. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 19:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Not only that, it's difficult to maintain uniformly. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 19:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

What's wrong with listing a character as depowered, active, inactive, retired, kind of retired, missing, dead or resurrected? The policy should be that only one at a time applies. —scarecroe 19:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Nothing's wrong, but the list isn't consistant or quantified (nor was my example nearly complete as based on the myriad of options I've seen used in the Status field), and the 'status' is dependant on publisher, in-story understandings, and it's helpful when so many heros are flipping back and forth between statuses. Which is ongoing and eternal. You also have people who put in 'Repowered via <source>' or 'temporarily depowered' and the more you put in variants, the less useful that field becomes. I'm just saying that unless the list can be codifed, simplified and pared down to 'these are the 'official' statuses', it's going to remain and ad-hoc mishmash of whatever a wikipedian wants to put in, and thus defy organization. If we put Status back in, I feel we must make it useful in how it works. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 20:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with that. What's the policy on how to write up what codes to use? —scarecroe 20:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Species

Why should "Species" be optional? It should not be that way.

Because now with species added, it disrupts the entire box. Ryulong 08:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I corrected the optional code on Species so it doesn't mess things up. It was commented out so it wasn't showing at all. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 23:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Universe of Origin

I think it would be great if a character's Universe of Origin could be listed in the box. This would be very useful for the DC entries to show where a character is originally from(Earth-1, Earth-2, Earth-4, Earth-8, Earth-S, Earth-X), especially since many of them have had memories from these universes returned after Infinite Crisis. This could also be helpful for Marvel characters, though much less needed than DC. 69.182.118.34 01:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Relatives field should be removed

While I would like to think that this field can function as navigational tool, but I can't really think of a time I have used it. And it tends to lead to arguments over whether characters are related or how, and it's just fan BS that should be dealt with in the article (or talk page). I have seen a number of other arguments, too, including whether alternate-reality relatives, characters without entries, or clones should be involved. And then there's the discussion about how to phrase "clones of alternate-future versions of children of clones".

A Man In Bl♟ck said on the WP:COMICS talk page, "I'm really tempted to remove the relatives field because of this, this, this, and let's not forget this. 95% of the time, this field is listing either wholly unimportant supporting characters (huh, Wiccan's parents are named Jeff and Rebecca), is insane fanon (Vision II is Wonder Man's nephew? WTF?), or requires the article to actually explain it (making the quick reference useless and indeed often misleading or confusing - e.g. Stryfe's convoluted backstory). It also encourages that sort of nonsense in other infoboxes, since the SHB is so visible and widely used; I've seen relatives fields in everything up to and including Mega Man infoboxes."

The SHB's repurposing as Template:WBToonChar has unfortunately led to this argument, about whether Plucky Duck is Daffy Duck's son.

We should really remove this unnecessary, trouble-making, cruft-encouraging field from the Superherobox template. --Chris Griswold 08:14, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

So...I'm gonna do that. Nothing gets an argument discussion started likte a little being bold. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

• Put me on record as supporting this move. They aren't relatives, because they ain't real people. Let's remember we're discussing fictional characters here, and that extends to info-boxes too. Steve block Talk 12:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
• Given they aren't real characters, what's the thinking of using alter ego rather than real name? I'd make the change now, but this thing is transcluded from here to eternity. Steve block Talk 12:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
• I also support the above reasons for removing the "relatives" field. As for Steve block's question, I'd also support "alter ego" over "real name", though I'd also suggest "secret identity" as a possibility. Postdlf 16:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

• I say leave it as it is, It helps tell us the charcters relashinsp to others. besides this is also used for manga chacters (Sailor moon of note) and They often have lots of relitives, so instead why not make it opinal.--Lego3400 17:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
• I vote for delete as it's rather pointless per above. Danny Lilithborne 00:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
• I'd say get rid of it, although I'm not sure I buy the argument that they aren't relatives because they aren't real. Anyway, any signifigant relationship between characters will be discussed in the articles for any such character (for example, Stryfe's relationship, such that it is, to the Summers Clan (which is, I believe, what sparked this debate to begin with)) Darquis 02:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
• I don't support this change. I can't believe you deleted something as important as the relatives field without notifying everyone in the project, and on the say so of so few respondants. It's an encyclopedia, we provide the user with as much information as possible and the relatives field was damned useful for crosslinking. And you don't arbitrarily remove a field that will require over 200 page edits without informing everyone. --Basique 03:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Providing the "user with as much information as possible" does not inform as to how that information should best be presented; the reasons given above soundly establish that explanation in article text is the best form for "relatives" of fictional characters, rather than stating it as abstract fact in the infobox. Chris Griswold and Man in Black above put it best as to why the relatives entries were usually extremely trivial and often absurd. As for the "over 200 page edits" required, you can remove the obsolete field info from the articles if you want, but it simply doesn't show up in the article now that the parameter has been removed from the box, so that effort isn't required. Postdlf 16:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Deprecating real name

Okay, I've amended the real name field to display secret identity, although you can input the field using either real name= or secret identity= at present. Eventually I'll look at migrating them all over. Steve block Talk 19:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

• One thing to note here. There are some heroes that don't have a "secret identity", either because they never did (Elongated Man, at least he hasn't as long as I can remember) or because it's become outted in some way (Matt Murdock/Daredevil, Tony Stark/Iron Man, Peter Parker/Spider-Man). Is there, perhaps, another descriptor that will better cover it? Alter ego seems most appropriate to me. Darquis 02:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
• Alter ego seems the most approiate to me. Kusonaga 12:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

What if it the character's hero/villain name IS their actual name (such as the Runaways)? --DrBat 23:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Then that field can be left blank...if no value is entered, it doesn't appear in the box. Postdlf 01:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Changes

• Should we also disable the "Relatives" field in the Supersupportingbox templates?
• I've disabled the "status" field per the discussion on this talk page. I gave it two weeks, and no one spoke against it.
• "Previous affiliations" just caught my eye. Because we have been making changes based on the timelessness of the material, should we make a distinction between current affiliations and previous ones? --Chris Griswold 09:59, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I support the first two, and I'd be willing to support a style change on Affiliations. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:14, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

No "previous" in any infobox fields; remember the rule of the eternal present in writing about fiction. I support all the above changes, except I still wish "status" could be refactored into real-life publishing status, with such descriptives as "supporting character in three monthly ongoing series," "infrequently used villain," "last published as a backup feature in 1940," something like that. I know this may seem like something that should just be explained in the article text, but I think we might be able to come up with some accurate and concise ways to use such a field, and the extent to which a character is or isn't being used is a central fact of the article. Postdlf 15:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I might be in favor of that were we to figure out how to make it work. So, if we get rid of "Previous", what about "Previous" members in {{superteambox}}? --Chris Griswold 18:13, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't get this idea of "eternal present". Can someone point me to where it's discussed? Darquis 05:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction). Every time you turn to the same page of the same book, the same action is always depicted there, so present tense is used to describe it. "Uncle Ben dies in Amazing Adult Fantasy #15," not "Uncle Ben died in Amazing Adult Fantasy #15." Postdlf 05:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

That..strikes me as a rule that causes unnecessary confusion when it comes to comics (or really any type of ongoing fiction). I understand that going back and reading it each time means the event is reoccurring, but in the most current incarnations of books, that's a past event (and the person reading it will thus view it as such). But I see the point of it..I think that "previous affiliations" is still viable though, the name just has to be changed. Affiliations in previous books, for example? Also,d oesn't that mean we can't mark any relatives of a character as deceased, as I could go back to the first Spidey adventure and read it and Ben would be alive in it (this only refers to the templates of course) Darquis 06:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

It probably means these fields aren't suited to an info-box in this project. Steve block Talk 11:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Really? I'd think that relatives, if nothing else, was an important feature of these (particularly in the case of families of heros/villains (Magneto's brood, the Summers clan, etc.)). I'm not sure the template itself works at at all under a strict reading of the Manual of Style. For example, why would we classify Sue Storm as the Invisible Woman rather than the Invisible Girl? And how can we rightly list all the notable aliases that don't exist if I'm reading F4 #1 (the original #1)? In Rogue's (to take an example of a person with changing powers) do we list her as having the ability to absorb the powers of others? Perhaps we also list her powers of the era where she had absorbed those of Ms Marvel? Or maybe the firepowers she currently holds? I don't think that we should scrap the template, but I also think that trying to apply the manual of style to it is futile. Darquis 16:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Just becuase they're not suited for the box doesn't mean they don't belong in the articles. A ==Personal life== section would do for it. As for powers, list only the current powers, and leave the past in the Powers and Abilities section. If it requires an explanation as to how/why it changed, it should get one. In the section ;) -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 17:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree, articles do need the information listed. However, in articles, it can be made clear what happened in what issue of what book, and how that has affected (effected? I never remember which) the character, and what the status quo is before and after each event. But because (and this is my interpertation, so this could be wrong) the Manual of Style wants every event treated as the present (therefore Uncle Ben is still alive as of the original Amazing Fantasy 14, but dead in each book after (other than flashbacks and the occasional 'oh hey, Uncle Ben is back' story)), you can't use the template very well, unless a character is introduced with each bit of information included in the template as static information. That is to say, they already have every power they will get, they have an alter ego and hero name that will never change, their family never changes, they don't join teams, etc (and they never have flashbacks to a time when any of that has changed). Does what I'm saying make any sort of sense? And if it does, am I horribly misintereprting things? Darquis 18:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

It makes sense, but like I say, that kind of says to me that this information isn't perhaps the sort that should be in an infobox. We shouldn't try and cram everything into these boxes. They should be a limited summation of the most commonly known details, an at a glance precis of the article. They shouldn't be an attempt to replicate the article, nor should they be overly long. Remember that infoboxes exist "to provide summary information consistently between articles or improve navigation to closely related articles in that subject". I'd say that the complex descriptions needed to describe the detailed character history acquired through serial fiction can't easily be summarised, and we shouldn't begin to try. It's plain silly edit warring over minor details such as the insertion or removal of details relatedto the non main continuity, for example. We shouldn't try and summarise everything, only enough to impart the standard, basic information. Steve block Talk 19:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with what you're saying there, and if I gave the impression that I don't, I wasn't clear enough. However, I think that the Manual of Style linked above means that we cannot definitively (sp) say that Rogue (for example) has absorbed the powers of Sunfire (assuming I remember this right, pretend I do) because it could later be changed again. It's the whole always write in the present tense thing that's sticking me, I think. Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but it almost seems to require we do away with Infoboxes because if I start reading X-Men or the F4 from the beginning, Rogue won't have those powers, and Sue will be the Invisible Girl. Which, I guess means, if I've read that right, I think that Superhero infoboxes should be exempt from this rule, and should be written based around the current status quo and updated as necessary (which includes relatives and former team affiliations, but nothing to overly complex levels (such as Stryfe's relationship to Corsair)). Darquis 19:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I see what you are saying. I would then suggest renaming the powers to powers of note, and advising The template asks for notable powers, so I'd advise that editors only list powers that a casual reader would notice the character had based on a cursory glance at an issue or movie. Those are the notable powers, the ones that get noted on a quick skim. For example, Rogue's most notable power is stealing other people's powers, or at least it was in my day of reading X-Men, 94-293. It's possible that other powers could be qualified, such as "Flight (after X-Men #I don't know, it could have been The Avengers) and so on... does that help? Let's face it, most people look at Superman and expect to see flight, strength, and invulnerability. With Wonder Woman they're looking for strength and the lasoo. So going from there, Iceman is going to be creates ice and so on. These shouldn't be attempts to detail the ins and outs, that hey had this power then and then they went into space and they got this power, and then they fell over and got that power back but then that was a dream and actually it turns out they were this character after all and... that's what the article is for. This is just a quick summary of points most of use to a casual browser. So use the powers most of use to a casual browser. Those people who know different don't need us to tell them. Those people who don't will read the article and find out. Steve block Talk 22:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

For powers, I think that distinction definitely works, and I think it proves my point..the heroinfoboxes can't feasibly adhere to the "everything" is the present (Which was the original problem I think). If we write these with the mindset of "what is the most useful information to have here" and then let the article have everything else, we're in good shape (thus, for a character like Ben Grimm, we obviously list the F4 (even though he has left the team before), we list his strength/toughness (despite him being depowered) his status as active/alive (even though I'm sure he's retired or died at some point), etc.). Darquis 16:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I totaly speak against the disabling of the Status field. The Relatives are ok, go and disable it, but please put the Status field back. Answer under this comment as soon as possible and tell if you will enable the Status field or not and why. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.141.121.118 (talk • contribs) 12:58 July 26, 2006

We have given our reasons; give yours, please. And sign your comments. --Chris Griswold 18:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• I totally speak against the disabling the Status field, do you think you could put the status field back? You can leave out the relatives and all that, but please put back the status field, answer ASAP.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.141.121.118 (talk • contribs) 13:56, July 27, 2006

Yes, we get it. See above. Please stop adding your comments in the middle of mine, and start signing them. --Chris Griswold 18:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Now why don't we delete the relatives now since you're not using it. now it's worthless information since you "disabled" it. it doesn't make sense that we keep it there when it's not being used. --Brian Boru is awesome 22:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

It;s unnecessary, but you can do it if you like. --Chris Griswold 02:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh good grief. Check some recent edits, people are still adding to the relatives and status lines. The only reason you haven't been getting more complaints is because it's tricky for less experienced users to find this page. It took me quite some time to find the right place. Put back the relatives and status sections, for heavens' sakes. It was useful information. Pretty much every user affected by the change had no idea a debate was going on.D1Puck1T 03:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Two weeks notice? I had then no idea what was going on. per what puck said. Airwave and Green Lantern II are related., You click on them and they give you more information. wikipedia is a encyclopedia. at list give external links the name of their relatives. --Brian Boru is awesome 19:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that that should be mentioned in the article? Isn't it? --Chris Griswold 08:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure for the most part that information is found in articles. This is about ease of use. I don't want to have to scan an entire article looking for important relatives, it makes sense to have that right at the top, easily seen. Essentially [i]everything[/i] in the superherobox is in the article. However, for someone like, say, Ra's al Ghul, his daughters are far more important than what teams he's a member of, or his "alter ego", information that remains in the box. Reed Richards has several notable relatives that have played key roles in stories. Same with a number of other characters. I fail to see what is gained by removing that section, and judging from the edits I see in my watchlist, a large number of people have no idea that a vote to disable that section even went on.D1Puck1T 23:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

We could cram all sorts of trivia into the infobox. At some point, we need to choose to exclude information that won't be relevant for most characters (many characters have boring relatives only referred to in passing) or will be too complicated to fit into an infobox (the Summers family tree, the Richards/Storm family tree), sometimes even shading into fanon (someone created an elaborate family tree for Henry Pym, Vision, Ultron, Wonder Man, and others). Oftentimes putting minor characters alongside major ones is misleading (Havok has been Cyclops's brother for decades, Vulcan was introduced in one miniseries and hasn't appeared since). Any cases where the relatives are actually important (Ras and Talia, Cyclops and Havok) will be mentioned in the article, with a mention proportionate to its importance to the character. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, then, we make Relatives an optional field and more carefully watch what gets included? For example, that Spider-Man is related to Mary Jane or Aunt May would be important, but that in an alternate universe, Nathaniel Richards is the great grandfather of a child who becomes evil and takes over the world wouldn't be. (And to be fair, Vulcan hasn't appeared again, but his miniseries only concluded within the last few months, and there is a 12 book arc of Uncanny X-Men (going on now) wherein he plays an important role. But I do see your point, which I would hope is addressed by more carefully controlling what we include). I could argue that someone's alter ego or aliases would be covered in the article, or that their first apperance was less important (I won't make any of those because I honestly think most of the info in boxes shoujld stay). What if there were a policy that you could only include siblings, parents, children and spouses, and of those, only the ones deemed important enough to merit their own wiki article? And to be clear, clones don't count, robots don't count, absorbing someone's personality doesn't count, etc. We can debate what exactly goes in there, but I think that'd be better than just ditching it (sorry to be so longwinded)Darquis 07:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

This infobox is already very large, and includes a great deal of in-universe detail. When you have an infobox transcluded into hundreds of articles, it becomes nearly impossible to patrol all of them for sub-minor characters, fanon relationships, or oddball family trees. Additionally, any reference to a relationship needs to be sourced, something which is at best inconvenient inside an infobox. We need to reduce the amount of trivia we're cramming into this infobox, not increase it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

If relationships need to be sourced, do other things as well? Anyway, I'd honestly do away with things like who created a character, or when they were created before removing relatives from the infobox. And I don't think it'd be any more difficult to patrol the infoboxes than it would be to patrol the articles they correspond to..if someone's already doing that, then they're seeing the infobox anyway right?Darquis 09:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Who created a character is infinitely more important than any in-universe detail. This is an encyclopedia about the real world, and we need to focus more on talking about the real world than any fictional one.

As for patrolling articles, it's often not immediately apparent that a field is being misused, so it's better to omit an often-misused field than to use it and try to fight the tide. Any noteworthy, sourcable relatives will already be in the article; any that aren't already in the article don't belong in the infobox. For every R'as al Ghul that would benefit from this field, you have five Wiccans with boring relatives and two Jean Greys who parented children in alternate timelines and those children went onto build intelligent androids in their image and those androids went to another dimension and fathered twins etc. There are so few articles that actually benefit from this field that the headaches just aren't worth it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Affiliations

OK, so how do we address the affiliations field? Past and present should be lumped together, but I don't think I can just go in and make that happen.--Chris Griswold 21:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

One possibility would be to include parentheticals giving the comic issue ranges over which affiliations of limited duration lasted. Like Invisible Woman's could be something like (and I know I'm not getting the numbers right) "Fantastic Four; Avengers (Avengers Vol. 1 #300-310 only)." Postdlf 00:12, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

The difficulty in that would be a character like Wolverene (who has been on multiple teams, multiple times). I don't think that the issue numbers need to be included..the SHB should either be written as if it were based on current publications (thus he's a former member of the Uncanny Xmen) or to provide the most important information to the reader (which may turn out to be far too subjective to be feasible)Darquis 18:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it's unnecessary to specify more than "X-Men" as an affiliation; that there are separate groups of X-Men in separate X-Men comic titles is unnecessary detail for infobox purposes. And no, we shouldn't have a bias towards recent publications, because too many changes prove ephemeral, and even if they stick, a feature of a character that has been portrayed for one year should not be more prominent than a feature that has been portrayed for twenty-five (even if it's a retcon change that "wipes out" the past twenty-five years, because we write out-of-universe). As opposed to the issue ranges I suggested above (which would become cumbersome when the affiliation is portrayed over multiple titles), the parentheticals should give the issue in which the character joins the team and issue in which the character leaves (or is last shown as a member of a team that simply is never shown again). So Wolverine's would be: "Affiliations: X-Men (Giant-Sized X-Men #1 (May, 1975) to present); Avengers (New Avengers #1 (Nov, 2004) to present)," etc. The issues and publication dates will inform as to which affiliations have been recent changes, which are longstanding portrayals of the character, and which were limited to finite stories. Invisible Woman's could be "Fantastic Four #1 (Nov, 1963) to present", with a footnote explaining that the character temporarily leaves the team in issues #300 to #340 or so. Postdlf 19:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm cool wiuth the parentheses; how do we implement this change?

I'm not sure how it'll look, but I'm willing to give it a go. If it works awful, we can always go back and fix it at a later date.Darquis 20:27, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the parentheses, it would bloat up the superherobox with too much information. That type of information should be in the article itself and leave the box as lean as possible. EDIT: Besides, what are you planning to add to for instance Wolverine's Alpha Flight Affiliation for instance? Dizzy D 12:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

An excellent question. How about "Alpha Flight (depicted in flashback only, X-Men #124 (Dec, 1976) onward)"? Postdlf 13:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Supporting characters

Well, shouldn't we apply the same changes to Template:Supersupportingbox? I would if I knew how to make such edits. —Lesfer ^(talk/@) 17:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that we should. That, and superteambox. I've started the discussions at Template talk:Supersupportingbox#Changes and Template_talk:Superteambox#Changes --Chris Griswold 19:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Discussing new infobox changes

I would really appreciate it if more interested editors would join the discussions at Template talk:Supersupportingbox and Template talk:Superteambox so we can create an actual concensus and decide what to do about the fields there. --Chris Griswold 20:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC) I'm going to delete some stuff in the superobox that's been diasbled. it's of no use if it doesn't appear on the dang article. --Brian Boru is awesome 01:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

X-Men

Please take a look at the SHB in the X-Men article. It lists every current active X-Men member. --Chris Griswold 04:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Usage in other than the comic book universe

It has come to my attention that this box has been popping up alot, specifically in entries about cartoon characters. The problem is the box seems to be for comics, and the "Publisher" field seems to furthers that. Is there some other term that can be used, so it dosen't sound so akward on those pages? Or it should it just be scrapped on those pages? Pacific Coast Highway ^{(blah • I'm a hot toe picker)} 20:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd say make another template, like a {{Cartoonbox}} or something that uses this one as inspiration instead of changing the "Superherobox" because other articles than those about superheroes have begun using it. That's just my thought though. --Newt ΨΦ 20:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Name of character in the SHB

Hal Jordan, Jay Garrick, and Rick Tyler all have their superhero names in their SHBs; however, I know that at least Carol Danvers does not. I haven't seen anything to indicate that one way or the other is right. Should the name used in the SHB be based on the depiction in the SHB image? Should it be based on the title of the article? Or, as in the case of Donna Troy, should we update the character's name/title every time it changes (She's labeled as Wonder Woman). Personally, I think that if the article is called Hal Jordan, the SHB should use the same name. --Chris Griswold 22:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think SHB name should always go with the article name. I think it should follow the caracter's current status just as in Donna Troy, for instance. The image portraits her as Wonder Woman, so the name follows it. —Lesfer ^(talk/@) 23:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

So you are basing it on the current status or the image? And I just want to be clear: The image should reflect the best-known version of the character, right? --Chris Griswold 01:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Not the best-known version, but the latest. Always keep the most current image (version) in the SHB. So, if Troy, right now, is Wonder Woman, the name on the top of the SHB should describe it. Wonder Woman is Troy's current identity. —Lesfer ^(talk/@) 03:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the idea of currentness. I think this is what the SHB should be about..the most accurate current depiction of the hero..the article can tell us what the character was like and did in the past. If Donna Troy is the Harbringer, Wonder Woman, Troia, Wonder Girl, or whatever, that's how it should be depicted in the box. Darquis 16:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the fact that their superhero alias should be the one depicted. There is, after all, no where else in the SHB a line to add their current alias, just past aliases. And, perhaps a bit of an in-fiction related statement, but they are pretty much always to referred as "Green Lantern" or "Wonder Woman" (etc.) in the comics. It's not at the first page roll call that it says: Hal Jordan, has a GL ring. It says: Green Lantern (Hal Jordan), has a GL ring.

I hope that made sense. Kusonaga 04:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Alter Ego issue

Moon Knight has dissociative identity disorder and thus his "aliases" Marc Spector, Jake Lockley and Steven Grant, could be considered alternate egos (personalities) and so qualify, I would think, as fodder for the Alter Ego field. Thoughts? --Newt_ΨΦ 15:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 17:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Names in the Alter Ego field are currently not showing up. Some of the others have setup a working kludge for high profile pages in the meantime. --Basique 10:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Redesign time!

This template is showing a little bit of age; it can probably be picked up a bit using parser functions. Additionally, there's really no reason for {{Supersupportingbox}}; all of its functions can be combined here and used with parser functions to turn them off when not needed.

I'm volunteering to do the work on SHB, if nobody minds, as I know tasks have been piling up.

I've got a preliminary list of things that need doing...

1. Remove the status and relatives fields.
2. Merge {{Supersupportingbox}} (done) and {{Comiccharacterbox}}, retaining their functions.
   1. Should this go under the {{Comiccharacterbox}} name?
3. Write some good, short usage guidelines, much like Template talk:Graphicnovelbox#Usage.
4. Steal any design touchups from {{Graphicnovelbox}}
   1. A little part of me wants to do a total design overhaul and make it look more like {{Infobox CVG}} visually. Does anyone think that this is a good idea?
5. A parser table for companies so people don't have to hard-code company color codes The color scheme has been disabled.
   1. Make sure to maintain backwards compatibility
   2. Add default colors, so a character with no specified colors is "other publisher", "neutral affiliation", "defunct series".
   3. Kill company color codes?
6. Make sure the "notable powers" section autohides, as even "Notable powers: None" isn't appropriate for all characters (e.g. characters from DMZ or Tintin)
7. Some sort of field for alternate superhero names? (Arsenal was Speedy, Jean Grey was Marvel Girl and Phoenix, etc.)

If it's got a question mark, I'm not going to do it without outside encouragement. If it doesn't, I'm doing it unless someone asks otherwise. The numbers are for easy reference, so you can yell at me for #2 without having to type out "The SSB merge idea" every time.

Any suggestions? Criticisms? Requests? Cease-and-desist orders? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:17, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Remove any reference to "previous", such as "previous affiliations". This was decided by consensus, but I haven't been able to do it yet. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 06:28, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

1. Agree, but I would like to see a Latest appearence field for dead or out-of-use characters e.g. Namorita. Just giving the last issue, mind, not stating that they're dead at all.

   That would almost certainly be misused--imagine people trying to implement it for simultaneously published appearances or living characters. Imagine Wolverine with that! Either "status" or nothing. -HKMarks 18:13, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

2. Agree.
3. Agree.
4. Not sure. Can you specify what?
   1. No, I like the current design more.
5. Agree.
   1. Agree.
   2. Agree.
   3. Not sure, they don't hurt anyone and is a standardised scheme...
6. Agree.
7. We already have a field for that, below alter ego.
8. Chris, does your proposal mean, for example, that the Invisible Woman and She-Hulk will both have the FF and the Avengers in the same affilations field, even though She-Hulk isn't a member of the FF anymore and neither are part of the Avengers currently? That could get confusing... --Jamdav86 15:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

   I agree, that would be Way too confusing. -HKMarks 18:13, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

It's not necessarily my idea; it's a consensus that was already arrived at but was difficult to implement until now. This was decided around the time that the status field was disabled because both have to do with tense rather than keeping it all in the eternal present. See #Changes, above. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 21:03, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Skimming that discussion briefly, it seems like Relatives had a clear consensus, but Status somewhat less so. I liked Postdlf's idea of more descriptive information than just "alive" or "deceased." Perhaps we could come up with some guidelines for what Status means? I mean, it doesn't have to be used for currently active characters at all, but for dead or retired characters... their deadness/retiredness is often pretty important. I like it but I'm kind of neutral on it-- "Status: dead" can be a big spoiler if nothing else. Besides that, sometimes we're just guessing at status (are they retired, or still active somewhere else?)

However, I don't think "previous affiliations" is a big problem... Although, yeah, in the text of the article it's talked about in present tense, there's always a sense when you're reading an old comic that you're reading an old comic. Even a relatively new reader knows that things have changed since what they're reading was published. I can see the problems and the reasons to drop it, but at the same time I think we might be sacrificing clarity for "correctness" if we do. I don't want a reader to look at Spider-Man's infobox and wonder why he's never around Ghost Rider if they're on the same team. -HKMarks 22:13, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Articles describe characters not just at a certain point in time, but in the whole of their existence. "Affiliations" simply can't be in the past because there is no past unless you are specifically describing a story. During Spider-Man's existence, he is depicted as being a member of the Secret Defenders, the New Avengers, the Invaders, and the Buffet Club. There is no past unless you are reading or discussing a particular story. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 22:27, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, I see what you mean. I just don't want to confuse people. (... Buffet Club..?) -HKMarks 22:45, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

He likes to go with Aunt May to the early bird buffet. I'm completely making it up. Also, the Invaders. The was the Golden Age robotic Spider-Man built by T.O. Morrow. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 23:11, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

There was no consensus on how to distinguish between old and current affilations. They cannot be removed as it invalidates some arguments for removal of team navboxes. --Jamdav86 19:27, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Some relevant discussion: WT:CMC#Alien/Cosmic Races box - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

It looks like the color codes are on the way out. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey, would anyone object to me also merging {{Comiccharacterbox}} here, also, to make this a Grand Unified Comic Character Box? It'd be easy to include all the functionality of that infobox, as well, and its name might be better as the most inclusive name. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Supersupportingbox is merged and redirected. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I've combined alliances and previous_alliances into one field. You can move everything from previous_alliances to alliances, but for the time being it's unnecessary. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I merged {{Comiccharacterbox}} here. The only outstanding issues are how to deal with alternate superhero names (is this even an issue?) and dealing with alignment issues (purely superficial, and I'll deal with that when I get around to it ¬_¬). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Superhero names field

There's been a lot of discussion about how to deal with characters who have had multiple superhero names (Hal Jordan or Jean Grey, for example). I think a field with all the superhero names a character has used might be a good idea; does anyone have any suggestions on how it should be named or used? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

It looks like people are putting them into the new aliases field. Is there any way to do a robot assisted replacement of all the old boxes, or will we have to do manual upgrades? --Basique 10:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the aliases field is perfect for this. But the 'upgrade' will need to be either AWB or manual :P Anyone got AWB to figure that out? -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 13:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Please please AWB you're our only hope. : ) --Basique 14:49, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Readd or change info !

Readd info like Relatives and Status. For remove Notable powers and add Powers/abilities (Not all Superhero have Superpowers). For relatives make it Marriage and Kids.--Brown Shoes22 15:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Colors

Why were the colors for their comicbook company and their alliance (hero/villain/neutral) removed? --DrBat 01:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Good question. See the "Kill company color codes?" discussion. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 01:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Because they are meaningless to readers and rather tacky-looking. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Is there any chance of "Notable Powers" being changed to "Abilities"? It takes up less space and covers more, right now notable powers takes up two lines. --Basique 02:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Done and done. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:35, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Damn that was quick. Thanks! --Basique 10:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Font size

Don't you think it could be just a little bit smaller? Just like in {{Superteambox}}? —Lesfer ^(t/c/@) 05:18, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

That's a result of shifting from the "toccolors" class to the "infobox" class. I'd rather not override the general style sheets if at all possible, since many of the variant Wikipedia skins and some people's personal style sheets use these named classes to customize the appearance. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:49, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Example

Since when is the invsable woman a picture of some man?Lego3400: The Sage of Time 13:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Not just any man, Jimbo Wales. I guess not to have this showing up in the "what links here" of her pic? I dunno. -HKMarks IS FROM SPACETALK ♦ CONTRIBS 13:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Colours

Can we please have a singular colour where there used to be alliance colours, as it is not as good-looking without it? --Jamdav86 19:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

It's currently being discussed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Comics#The_template_color_scheme

So far most votes seem to go for blue. Please feel free to add your vote Dizzy D 20:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Should "Alter ego" be changed back to "Real name"?

If I'm not mistaken, the field "Real name" was deprecated due to some editors feeling the field could be redundant sometimes, since several heroes and villains (eg: Zauriel) perform their customed activities using their real names. It was immediately replaced by "Secret identity", which was deprecated almost immediately after inception due to the civilian identities of many superheroes not being secret. However, for reasons that I'm about to state, I feel that "Alter ego", while a better replacement than "Secret identity", has some major flaws which indicate that we should probably revert the field's name back to "Real name", and I hope the majority of editors will agree with me. Well, here goes my rant:

The American Heritage dictionary defines "Alter ego" as "Another side of oneself; a second self". How does this apply to say, Darkseid (birth name: Uxas)? There aren't two sides to the personality of Uxas. Uxas is always Darkseid, and Darkseid is always Uxas. Therefore, the name Uxas doesn't belong under a field called "alter ego". I know that when a field does not apply to a certain character, we are supposed to leave it blank, but isn't the fact that Uxas is Darkseid's birth name important enough to be included in the box? Koriand'r, Stephen Strange, Samael and Hank McCoy are not the respective alter egos of Starfire, Dr. Strange, Lucifer and Beast, because they act and sometimes even dress exactly the same when being referred to by the former names as they do when being referred to by the latter ones. Should "Diana Prince" and "Kory Anders" (a name Starfire shortly used while she completed Earth studies, and the closest thing she has to anything which could be considered an alter ego) take precedence over "Princess Diana" and "Koriand'r"? I think not. With the name of the field being "Alter ego", the line between what should be considered an alter ego and what should be considered a "Notable Alias" is effectively blurry. Matches Malone is as much an alter ego to Batman as Bruce Wayne is. What should we do then? While some editors have been encouraged to move Moon Knight's disassociated personalities from the Alias field to the Alter ego field, determining what belongs under what will inevitably lead to arguments where subjectivity and biased opinions have a lot of weight, for example: "Was enough of Wolverine's true personality shining through during his time as Death that it can be considered more of an alias than an alter ego?". And I'm the only one who thinks that while "Real name: Kal-El (adopted as Clark Kent)" sounds OK, "Alter ego: Carl Lucas (legally changed to Luke Cage)" sounds like hell? Wrapping up, also consider that a casual reader without much comic book knowledge might be confused by the fact that, Adam Strange's article (for example) doesn't seem to list his real name, which the reader could easily not be aware is the same as his superhero name.

If no one posts anything opposing my proposed change in two days time, I will make the change myself. I anyone disagrees with the change after that, we can still discuss it here and/or leave it as it was until a compromise is reached. Whew. That took long. --Ace ETP 23:37, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I also prefer real name. I'm really not sure if it was changed to alter ego from "real name" or "secret identity." But there are some weird cases like Moon Knight, or people who use their real name as a super-name and then make something up for civilian life... but that can be handled by aliases. On the other hand... sometimes the field is used for the character's full name, as was the old field on the supersupportingbox (which is gone)-- which might be a problem. --HKMarksCANDY IS A FOOD GROUPTALK♦CONTRIBS 00:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Seeing as how three days have passed and no one besides HelenKMarks (who seems to mostly agree with me) has posted, I'm going to go ahead and change "alter ego" to "real name" myself. Please understand that by no means I'm I blind to the flaws which led to "Real name" being deprecated, but also understand that "alter ego" simply doesn't cut it as the field's name. An alter ego, being another side of a person (a second self), isn't necesarilly something that has particular name or can be easily expressed with words (for example, Jamie Madrox has several different personalities, but they all operate under the same moniker). On the other hand, many comic book characters don't bother to develop a personality only to be used when wearing spandex, or even have a life outside their superheroic exploits (like at least half the current members of the JSA). --Ace ETP 21:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm reverting alter ego back to real name. Brian Boru is awesome 22:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Please resolve this disagreement before changing the template again. The parameter ends up broken every time someone edits it, and I've had to made the code rather complex to deal with everyone changing the name of this parameter and because of a similar-but-different parameter from {{Comiccharacterbox}}, which was merged here. Every time someone fiddles with it, they just break it, instead of changing it, and I just finally got it working again. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

There is no disagreement. No one has posted anything opposing the proposed change. As you seem to be more skilled in editing the template without messing it up than me, I implore you to please take the time to change it so "Real name" is what's displayed rather than "Alter ego". Thanks in advance. --Ace ETP 23:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, I just saw you latest message in my talk page. I'll suggest the change at WT:CMC later today or tomorrow when I have the time. --Ace ETP 23:13, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Name in SHB

Should the name in the SHB be different from the character name used in the title? Examples: Carol Danvers, Kyle Rayner. It just seems strange to have an infobox at the top of the article with a different name from the article. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 09:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Strange, but normal. The article title is what their best known by. The SHB displays their stats with a preference on current and correct information. Some Character's don't use aliases, some do. Some are really stupid and forgetable. ("Starlight"? "Ion"?) However, those are their names. The intro alone should explain anyway any perceived inconsistancies. Besides, it's better than listing them "[article name] as [character name]", right? ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 18:59, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Anyone watching?

Hey. Anyone actually watching the template these days? No? Feh. Seems we have another problem. A user is trying to re-add at least one field removed with consensus and add an undiscussed field such as "voice actor." The user doesn't seem to realize others would probably want off these changes or that the former in made in opposition of a consensus. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 18:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Readd Relatives and Status

Readd info like Relatives and Status. For relatives make it Marriage and Kids. For the Superhero's Status isn't that much of a porilm to add --Brown Shoes22 05:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

We've been over relatives over and over again. One of three things happens:

1. The relatives are uninteresting, not-at-all noteworthy minor characters. (Iceman's parents come to mind.)
2. The family tree is BATSHIT INSANE. The Ultron/Hank Pym/Wonder Man family tree comes to mind, as does the Summers family tree, and the Richards (as in Reed Richards) family tree. Then you have Superman, who has a different cousin depending on the universe and continuity in question, alternate-universe families that might or might not be canon (is Kingdom Come/The Kingdom canon? What a nightmare), time travel, and other messes.

   Here's a sample from Ultron:

   Henry Pym (creator, "father")
   Wasp ("mother")
   Vision (creation, "son")
   Jocasta (creation, "first wife", separated)
   Alkhema (creation, "second wife", separated)
   Victor Mancha (creation, "son")

3. The family tree is reasonable and the characters are worth mentioning, in which case the characters are already duly noted in the article.

There's little reason to have a relatives field, and many possible headaches.

As for status, every single superhero who has ever been alive in a fictional work is alive. Any hero who has ever been active in a fictional work is active, every hero who has been retired in a fictional work is retired. Spider-Man is alive in some comics, dead in others, active in some, retired in others. All comics are present, because works of fiction, even serial works of fiction, are eternally present. WP:WAF has more on this point. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

• Dear A Man In Black I only bring up Relatives becuse little or no word of many Famly mebers in articles. and I was think of Notable Relatives not the half-clone-brother thing --Brown Shoes22 22:13, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

However, the will still be misuse. You can tell people to do one thing and they'll do another. We can't regulate/micro-manage the use of a single field whose very need for inclusion is debatable. Plus, who decides these "rules"? Me? You? Ultimately, it's just not worth the hassle. Oh and qute frankly, anyone truly notible WOULD be mentioned. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 04:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)