Template talk:Infobox soap character/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Durations for spouses

I believe durations for spouses should not be used. This is for multiple reasons.

1. It's false. A character may have been married to another character, say for example, during the years 2010–12, but fiction exists in a permanent present state, and in many cases, past episodes are still available to watch in many ways, be it a repeat on another channel, being available online or recorded in some other way – therefore a 2011 episode could be watched 2015, and it would look like the two characters are married in 2015, therefore it is false.
2. It's not important. It's in-universe information that doesn't need to be presented in the infobox. It's far easier to just list the names of spouses someone has had, and the article can explain the rest. The infobox is meant to contain as little in-universe information as possible.
3. The character may not have existed. Listing a year of marriage that happened off-screen or as part of a character's backstory, for a character that didn't exist in that year, is nonsense (e.g. Vincent Hubbard arrived in EastEnders in 2015, already married to Kim Fox, so to say he was married to her in 2014 is nonsense as he didn't exist.). Characters are not real people, they are created by writers.

So please can we remove the guidance stating that "durations are listed" for spouses? Even if people want to use durations, it should be optional for at least the above reasons (and in fact, it's for reason #3 that many EastEnders characters don't have a complete duration and there appears to be a consensus for this). Thanks. –anemoneprojectors– 11:01, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

As I explained here, your third reason is just not correct, and you sorta proved that by what you said in the end. When you say Vincent Hubbard "didn't exist in that year" and dismiss his existence as "nonsense," you are saying that simply because no actor portrayed him. However, you then go on to state that characters are "created by writers" (not actors) and, as I pointed out at the Vincent Hubbard talk page, the writers created him when they first started writing about him as an unseen character (common in all types of fiction).Cebr1979 (talk) 11:37, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Vincent Hubbard is not the only character this applies to. We don't know what goes on in writers' minds, though, so how do we know when a character was created? I'm sorry that I don't recall exactly how it went with Kim, but maybe the writers decided she was married, and then later decided that her husband would be Vincent Hubbard and would become a character. But forgetting that (because I can see this being endless arguments about when Vincent was created), Vincent Hubbard is not the only character this applies to. –anemoneprojectors– 13:10, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Removing marital durations is going to be a big hurdle to try and make; you're going to have mass IP's re-adding that information, and it is not going to be an easy adjustment to make. IP's are already trying to bring back old fluff into articles, and are not handling the new alias/other names parameter (which I was also against). I just don't know if it is the right route to take. I remember when it was recommended to make a "Current spouse" and "Former spouses" parameter, and I think that would also be too-much detail; iboxes are meant to be an over-view. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 12:58, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree, but at least I'd like to get the EastEnders pages right. There already seems to be consensus for it in that multiple editors are removing marriage years that happened before a character existed, and are reverting other editors that insert these years. Infoboxes are meant to be an overview, which is another good reason to remove qualifying text such as supposed years of marriage. –anemoneprojectors– 13:10, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Okay, then I think if the marriage years are not explicitly stated, then sure, they shouldn't be included; but if the marriage did take place on-screen or the date of their marriage year has been revealed (either by character stating such or seen on document), then it can be included. But simply removing years all-together is definitely not the way to go in this case. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 13:13, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree. With this Vincent character however, the date of their marriage year has been revealed.Cebr1979 (talk) 13:25, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict, reply to livelikemusic) That's fair enough. I suppose I wouldn't necessarily object to years of marriage for someone like Gail McIntyre, where all her marriages happen during the time she is in the show, if people really want them there, but, like when years were removed for durations of occupations in all EastEnders articles, it would do absolutely no harm if there were no years at all. But I do object to, for example, Liz McDonald's marriage being listed as starting in 1974, when she didn't exist then. I can't really recommend saying that years shouldn't be used at all, but the template documentation as it stands is apparently forcing years into infoboxes where they may not be necessary. –anemoneprojectors– 13:27, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I just realised I already started a discussion on this before but it died. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Soap Operas#In-universe dates in infoboxes. –anemoneprojectors– 13:40, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure where to continue the discussion now since I received a reply on that older one tonight. But I just came across this edit, which seems to be a great example of why years should be removed. Den did exist in 1999, though he'd been killed off and the decision to turn that into a fake death is unlikely to have been made by then. When he returned "from the grave" in 2003, he was married to Chrissie Watts, said to be from 1999. Although I can totally see where this editor was coming from, I had to revert it because it could potentially look like Den was married to Chrissie in 1985 when he was married to Angie, but in episodes from 1999 to 2003, there was no indication he was married to Chrissie. –anemoneprojectors– 21:48, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

That is a good point, actually. The same thing has happened to characters like Marlena Evans when, some thirty years later, Alex North showed up saying they'd been married that whole time and completely invalidated all of her previous marriages up to that point! There are also characters like Bo Brady, John Black, and Hope Williams Brady whose marriage history is one giant mess due to them all having been put through brainwashing stories and retcons (mostly due to the Princess Gina debacle). I had actually been thinking of returning to this conversation anyhow because with common SORASing of child characters, someone like Abby Newman was born onscreen while her mother was married to Brad Carlton, meaning she was born between 2000 & 2006 (according to the marriage dates listed on both pages) however, given that Abby is now a woman in her late twenties/early thirties, those marriage dates no longer make any sense when thought of in terms of her birth... I do now think that marriage dates should be removed from the infoboxes.Cebr1979 (talk) 22:52, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

There are so many strange and special cases in soaps, and it would make sense to at least remove durations for those ones, if not all. I guess it would also mean removing dates that someone was a stepparent from the infobox, as those are essentially the same thing. –anemoneprojectors– 08:31, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Step-parents just shouldn't be listed at all, in my opinion. At the rate soap characters get married, divorced, re-married, annulled, re-married, divorced, dead, back from the dead, marriage never legally dissolved, re-divorced, etc... step-parents are nothing more than glorified in-laws and we will forever be updating who their step-parents/kids are/aren't. However, there was a consensus talk (based solely on multiple users original research as to what a step-parent even is) that decided legal fathers can't be legal fathers anymore and have to be step-parents so, until that talk is over-turned, the dates need to be there for that parameter otherwise every soap opera character will look like the product of polygamy, which they aren't.Cebr1979 (talk) 21:23, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Sometimes the relationship with the step-parent is more notable than that with the real parent. In EastEnders, we only list step-parents if they were involved in the upbringing of the child or the relationship was notable in some other way. We don't have masses of step-parents listed. But this discussion is about dates, not the inclusion of step-parents, and dates are used for spouses and step-parents, so if spouse dates are removed, then step-parent dates should be removed. –anemoneprojectors– 15:32, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

In that, though, how can we list a "step-parent" like John Abbott (even though that's not what he was...) in the Ashley Abbott infobox without listing the others? If we only list one step-parent, it'll look like she only ever had one step-parent and... she didn't. She had more than one! Many more than one! That's exactly one of the (many) reasons why original research isn't allowed on wikipedia.Cebr1979 (talk) 20:21, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the show or the characters, but this discussion is about dates. Currently, dates for stepparents exist in some articles, so if spouse dates are removed (which you agreed with), do you agree that stepparent dates are also removed? –anemoneprojectors– 13:00, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

No. I have made that clear. For as long that step-parent parameter is there and used incorrectly, the dates are needed. Otherwise, as I've said, soap characters will look like the product of polygamy, which they aren't.Cebr1979 (talk) 21:20, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I disagree that it will look like polygamy. It will just look like a list of stepparents. If years aren't needed for spouses, there's no way they should be needed for any other family member in the infobox. AnemoneProjectors 15:19, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Another reason to remove this has just popped up in EastEnders. Phil Mitchell has filed for divorce and his wife Sharon Watts has agreed and signed divorce papers. This doesn't make them legally divorced but people have already added a date saying that they are divorced. Removing in-universe dates would completely elimiate this problem, especially when someone files for divorce in December, and we hear nothing of a decree absolute so we've just assumed it happened the following year. Even if Phil and Sharon are divorced now, if I watch an episode from last week in 3 years' time, they're still married and it will be 2019, but wait, the infobox says they're not married in 2019! So it will be completely wrong! It is not real! AnemoneProjectors 13:09, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

This "what if I'm watching a re-run" example of yours is so tired. When people watch re-runs, they know they're watching re-runs and, even if they don't and they come here, they'd have to be blind not to figure it out (and blind people can't come here). I get that fictional characters exist in a constant state of the present and whatnot but... the constant "re-run" example of yours is ridiculous and completely insulting to Wikipedia readers intelligence. 'Simpsons' re-runs are on all the time. Do I think Marge's sister is still married to Troy McClure because of it? No. I'm intelligent. And so is the rest of the world.Cebr1979 (talk) 21:42, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

So the best solution then is to remove the durations. I currently watch Hollyoaks about five weeks behind the actual broadcast. They're not repeats to me though, in fact I wasn't talking about repeats, I was talking about recordings or on-demand services. In the UK, Home and Away is eight weeks behind the Australian broadcast. In the USA, EastEnders is 10 years behind the UK broadcast. So I can't accept that my argument is tired. It is perfectly valid. Imagine your soap opera is a film series. You wouldn't say a character got married in 2016 just beacuse that's the year one of the films came out. Just because it's a soap opera doesn't make it any different to any other work of fiction. And blind people can come here if they want to. Plus you completely ignored the main point of my previous comment. AnemoneProjectors 23:38, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

No... Lol! Removing the durations is not the best solution (at least not yet), that's just what you want (and don't mention "ignoring" to me again: reading your comments, no matter how long inbetween them, is always one big circle and that's another tactic that's grown really tired). Please start acknowledging what others say to you. Neither the internet, nor an encyclopedia, revolves around you and your television schedule. If a character dies tomorrow... Guess what? Wikipedia will mention it and nobody is going to wait 5 weeks for you to get caught up. That's not only ridiculous... it's absurd!Cebr1979 (talk) 01:54, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out that you know you're 5 weeks behind... and so would anyone else. Just like someone watching a re-run knows they are watching a re-run. "I'm behind" or "What if I re-watch an episode in 2019?" is a pointless argument.Cebr1979 (talk) 02:21, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Of curse I'm not saying Wikipedia should wait for me to watch something before it's updated (I know I'm behind, though not everyone in the world will know how far behind they are). Anyway "repeats" or "being behind" isn't my only argument and isn't even the main reason, so to me it does look like you are ignoring the rest. I was only posting another reason that came up about Phil and Sharon in EastEnders, and maybe I should have left it at that and not mentioned the 2019 thing (even though it makes perfect sense to me, real-world versus in-universe dates). So sorry about that. Anyway, on 1 October 2015 you were agreeing with me and for very excellent reasons that you gave. AnemoneProjectors 19:47, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Yep, I did. And now I don't. I can't take you seriously, I'm going to have to be perfectly honest. When you don't get your way, you create new "rules" out of thin air in order to get yourself your way in the end. Rather than going to a talk page, you just revert to your heart's content. It is hard to keep up with you because, as previously noted, you ignore previous conversations and just constantly bring up the same nonsense points (watching old episodes, so and so not existing because no actor had been cast) and then, at your earliest convenience, you jump to "Well, it seems like the best thing to do is give me my way," type of posts. I don't think this really has anything to do with marriage dates, I think you're trying to get your way on marriage dates so you can then use that to get your way on the step-parent dates. Would I be right in that? Is this conversation just being used to propel that other one in your favour?Cebr1979 (talk) 20:39, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

You just did it again. Where are these "rules" (that coincidentally get you your way) coming from??? This is not the first time you've been asked.Cebr1979 (talk) 21:30, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This is completely off topic, but there is already prior consensus for the amount of family included in the infobox, so I'm not making up rules out of thin air at all. By reverting my edit, which I explained in the edit summary, and other edits I made with it, I think you are being disruptive just to try to make a point. I think marriage dates and step-family dates should be treated in the same way, so I am not trying to push one to get the other. I want them both removed at the same time, for exactly the same reasons, mainly that it is in-universe information that does not belong in the infobox. AnemoneProjectors 21:40, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Anemone: You want them removed... yes. But that hasn't been agreed to yet... so why are you removing them? This is bogus. You don't get to tell me (or anyone else) to go read a whole page. You have to pinpoint where the exact conversation is that states what you're claiming (and I did show you where it says that). If you want to mention "disruptive", let's talk about your constant reverting, "IDHT" attitude in ignoring everything previously said to you, and your phoney "rules" made out of thin air that give you your way. Let's do that at ANI. I'll compile it and let you know when I'm done.Cebr1979 (talk) 21:51, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Still completely off topic but never mind. I'm going to look for the relevant prior discussion(s) if I really have to, but as an editor of fictional subjects you should already be aware of WP:WAF-INFO, which says the infobox should contain (among other things) "in-universe information essential to understanding the entity's context in the overall fiction" and "infoboxes about fictional entities should avoid delving into minutiae, such as information only mentioned in supplementary backstory". Is that good enough prior consensus for you? Anyway, back to the dates. Yes I removed Vincent's marriage date, not because I want in-universe dates removed, but because he's been married to Kim for his entire duration. There are other examples (though not loads, as typical of soaps, marriages tend to end one way or another). Gita Kapoor is one. Even if the character starts off married (like Vincent) but the marriage ends while the character is still around, we don't add a start date, just an end date, even if a supposed (in-universe) start-of-marriage date is known. Anyway, all I asked for is that durations are optional, which they currently don't appear to be from this template's guidance. I wanted to build a consensus either way. You did agree with me, you probably only claim to have changed your mind because you forgot you agreed. AnemoneProjectors 22:36, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I only read as far as "if I really have to" and then stopped. You do have to. And you know that.Cebr1979 (talk) 22:58, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Get back to me when you've bothered to read the rest. AnemoneProjectors 23:24, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Link to the consensus talks yet? Get back to me with that. An admin should not be fooling around with phantom consensus talks and, no... I am not reading a whole page you've linked to - give me the conversation you claim has happened or... we'll have to move on as though you made it all up. That's how Wikipedia has decided "Phantom Consensus Talks need to be treated. I mean... how long have you had now? Really.Cebr1979 (talk) 19:49, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I've already linked you to three guidelines (all of which you are already aware of anyway as a Wikipedia editor), which are all built on consensus, and (as a Wikipedia editor) you already know that consensus is not just built on discussion. By your reasoning, if I ask someone to cite a source for something, directing them to WP:V is not good enough, I have to find some ancient discussion where the contents of WP:V were decided upon. Show me the Wikipedia policy about your so-called "phantom consensus talks" and I might consider it. AnemoneProjectors 20:24, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I've linked to it multiple times now (most recently in the post you just responded to).Cebr1979 (talk) 20:37, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Unless, of course, you're saying a whole board full of admins is wrong and only you are right about that too? Cebr1979 (talk) 20:38, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

You linked to a discussion, not a policy. Show me the policy that says if I show you a guideline, I have to also show to the discussion(s) that created it. You can't because there isn't one, since policies and guidelines are proof of consensus. So just accept that you are wrong. You are already aware of WP:SOAPS, WP:WAF-INFO and Template:Infobox soap character guidelines, so stop pretending you're not and stop disrupting Wikipedia. AnemoneProjectors 20:46, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm so over you and your nonsense. Continuing here. Next stop: ArbCom. You shouldn't be an admin.Cebr1979 (talk) 21:17, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

User:AnemoneProjectors: I have now read all of the pages you have linked to from top to bottom and there is not one thing anywhere that states "Durations for spouses" are not needed in the infobox when a character has been married their entire duration. Not one. Anywhere. There is, however, this that states "Durations are listed." I've put that information back now and I do hope you stop being such a disruption with your phoney baloney rules, goose-chase policies and phantom consensus talks.Cebr1979 (talk) 10:42, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

You keep changing what you're complaining about and the location of the discussion, so if I'm giving you links to something else you're complaining about, you only have yourself to blame. Your complaint that I'm not showing you a discussion is about a family member, not a duration. In this discussion, all I asked for was "durations for spouses" to be made optional. I want to hear from someone else, because two people arguing isn't the way to build consensus. Also, consensus is not only made by discussion and other articles don't have durations for spouses already where they've been married theit whole time in the programme. Do what you want, I'm giving up on you. Take care. AnemoneProjectors 10:56, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh, thank goodness! you take care as well!Cebr1979 (talk) 10:57, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

...and... no. I've always asked for proof of a consensus on everything you've claimed has been reached by consensus, not just Aunt Cynthia. But, oh, well. As I've said... take care.Cebr1979 (talk) 11:02, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Actually it was with Cynthia when you started accusing me of "making up rules" and that was why you reported me to ANI. AnemoneProjectors 12:57, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh, no. Not even close! You should re-read everything at ANI there. Cynthia is but a footnote, barely a mention.Cebr1979 (talk) 15:19, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree with User:livelikemusic's point about including marriages (and divorces) if they took place on-screen or if the marriage years have been explicitly stated (on-screen or in a reliable source). If they haven't, then they don't get included. I worry that by eliminating the years some readers might think certain characters are married to more than one person at the same time. Also, what about those characters that married the same person more than once? The years help show there were multiple marriages. If we remove them, do we add the spouse's name to the ibox for every instance? - JuneGloom07 Talk 17:22, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

This is basically what we do, at least in the articles I watch - if two characters are introduced as married, then no start date for the marriage is included, and if they leave as married then no end date is included, but if one leaves and one stays and then a divorce is mentioned then we add the end date (and if they marry or divorce on screen then the dates are added). If the dates were to be removed, I wouldn't suggest adding the names twice for when someone marries the same person twice, but it could be that "(twice)" is added instead. I'm not sure that readers would assume that characters are in bigamous marriages. It's just that I've come across a number of examples where I've felt it was better not to include any years, I already mentioned Vincent Hubbard. I think one was when Phil Mitchell and Sharon Watts received a decree nisi and people started adding an end date but they never applied for the decree absolute and remained married. Plus there was confusion over Nick Cotton's marriage dates. There's also the matter of marriages that have already ended before a character arrives, or that start after a character leaves... and if two characters marry on screen and then leave together still married, are they assumed to be married forever? I imagine some future version of Wikipedia showing fictional characters having been married for hundreds of years! Naima Jeffery is the only example I can think of off the top of my head. anemoneprojectors 22:50, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Years next to stepchildren

[Comment removed by user]

I don't know if we ever resolved this in past discussions, but I personally agree that there are few appropriate uses for date spans in the family section of infoboxes.— TAnthony^Talk 19:39, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Personally I support the removal of all date ranges from family members, therefore for the sake of this discussion I support the removal of years next to stepfamily members. anemoneprojectors 14:38, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I also support the removal of years from step parents/children. I don't know when it started or why, but it's just more unnecessary clutter. Hopefully, the article would mention when/how a character became a step parent or child. - JuneGloom07 Talk 20:19, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

[Comment removed by user]

I wouldn't say this discussion has received enough input for real consensus, but I think historically most interested editors have agreed on minimal dates and such in the Family section. Are there specific articles that you're interested in changing? I've found that it is usually one editor who decides to add something like this to all the characters of a particular show they're interested in, and then it might be copied by some other editors. You could boldly "fix" these articles as you see fit, but you may want to first identify who has introduced this trivia and invite them here.— TAnthony^Talk 17:49, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

[Comment removed by user]

@Grangehilllover: I thought this specific discussion was about removing years from step parents and step children, but you appear to be removing years from marriages too – [1], [2] and [3]? I don't think there is a consensus for the removal of marriage years (yet). - JuneGloom07 Talk 17:06, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

[Comment removed by user]

I understand it ties in with that, as you mentioned above, but this was a discussion about date for step families. Since the durations for spouses discussion doesn't seem to have a consensus at the moment, I don't think you should have removed the durations from the iboxes. If you think durations for spouses should be removed, then I suggest commenting on that discussion. - JuneGloom07 Talk 21:04, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree that there's no consensus to remove dates from marriages. It should be, and is being, discussed separately. anemoneprojectors 22:27, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

So, to ask the question, should the years appearing next to stepchildren and stepparents be removed or have we yet to reach an actual consenus? Soaper1234 (talk) 08:30, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

We should close this discussion and start again as the person starting it has removed their comments. anemoneprojectors 19:49, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

On this topic, I've seen a couple of users trying to add 'end dates' for the stepchildren of widows and widowers (Diane Sugden being the example I've worked on). This is fundamentally incorrect - you don't stop being a stepmother or father because your spouse dies, as you would if you got divorced. Additionally, we should always consider the relationship before blindly implementing rules. Diane still has very close relationships with all her stepchildren and very much fulfils the role of a mother figure long after Jack's death. Another example would be Susan Kennedy - if your role as a step-parent ends when your spouse dies, strictly speaking she was only stepmother to the Kinski children for about an hour, when she actually brought them up as her own for several years. Smurfmeister (talk) 14:36, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Same as Jack Branning, who is bringing up his wife's son, after she died on the night of their wedding. I just think there are so many reasons to remove years. In a lot of articles I watch, the stepparent/stepchildren years were removed as a result of this discussion, as it was certainly going that way even if the consensus wasn't final. If we decide that this is now the case, we should update the template documentation. —anemoneprojectors— 19:21, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I think everyone was in agreement about the removal of years, even the editor who removed their comments. I'd certainly support an update of the template documentation to reflect the discussion. - JuneGloom07 Talk 13:39, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, shall we change it? — anemoneprojectors 10:34, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Having just looked, the documentation only insists on years for spouses, not for stepparents and stepchildren, so would we need to add that years are not used for them? — anemoneprojectors 10:39, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

I think you can change it now. I guess that a note about not adding years for stepparents and stepchildren could be useful. - JuneGloom07 Talk 01:34, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I've added a note that durations are not required. — anemoneprojectors 15:36, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Great-uncles/great-aunts and second cousins

I think including sections for great-uncles/great-aunts and second cousins is seriously needed now, to prevent over-crowding of the "other relatives" section. This problem is most notable (in my experience) when dealing with members of the Dingle family from Emmerdale, however over-crowding is becoming an issue on many other character pages - take Tiffany Butcher for example; her "other relatives" section currently has 16 characters crowding it, however if these sections were to be added her "other relatives" section would have five with the other 11 characters being spread across the other three sections. Adding these sections would present a tidier page with easier to read information. Connorguy99 (talk) 17:14, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I would be opposed to adding more family parameters. Family members should be kept to a minimum and adding more parameters will encourage the addition of non-notable relationships. Tiffany Butcher may have 16 "other relatives" listed but I'm sure many of them should be removed, especially the ones who are young children. People tend to add characters when they have simply shared a scene, but these aren't notable storylines. — ᴀnemoneᴘroᴊecтors 14:05, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

I'll try cut down some relatives. Couldn't something like collapsible element be added to other relatives? Grangehilllover (talk) 15:35, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Family is already collapsed so I don't think it can be collapsed within that. — ᴀnemoneᴘroᴊecтors 17:21, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi @AnemoneProjectors:, I know it's been a long time, but the conversation below just got me thinking: couldn't the collapsible family section just be done away with because to be honest, it just doesn't seem relative anymore like "Adoptive father" when some characters have 2 "Adoptive fathers". How about:

Tiffany Butcher
EastEnders character
Portrayed by	Maisie Smith
Duration	2008–2014, 2016, 2018–
First appearance	Episode 3552 1 April 2008 (2008-04-01)
Classification	Present; regular
Introduced by	Diederick Santer (2008) Sean O'Connor (2016) John Yorke (2018)
Spin-off appearances	Last Tango in Walford (2010)
In-universe information Other names Tiffany Dean Occupation Student

And then maybe a paragraph in the article titled "Family" or something...

Family

As Tiffany is the daughter of Bianca and Ricky, she is the sister of Liam, the maternal half-sister of Morgan and the paternal half-sister of Kira Salter: Whitney is also considered a sibling of Bianca's children.

BUT because in the infobox, relatives got added just upon meeting and if it's in a paragraph, have references to back up a relation is notable. This is just an example. Could this work and cut down the clutter? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grangehilllover (talk • contribs) 22:12, June 1, 2018 (UTC)

References

I think explaining all of character's relationships in prose like this is sort of the opposite of what we should be doing. While I'd expect notable spouses, parents, siblings, or children to be mentioned in the lead, a well-written plot summary will illustrate the relationships naturally. A family section would be largely redundant, as in the Tiffany Butcher article, where her parents, brother, and connection to Whitney are noted in the first paragraph of the Storylines section. And by the way, your citation above doesn't mention Morgan or Kira.— TAnthony^Talk 23:08, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Some questions

I was largely inactive during the time a few years back when several parameters were being added to this template or updated. I've been looking through archived discussions, but I have some questions about usage (the documentation isn't quite up to date), and some "conversation starters" regarding content:

1. I'm unclear about what |appeared= (Appeared in) and |only= (Appeared on) are used for. There are |spinoffs= and |crossover= parameters already, so...?
2. What is |breed=, and which characters are using it? Can I assume it has something to do with |owner=? Do we really have articles for soap opera pets?
3. I was "around" when |years= (Duration) was added, but was never sure of its usefulness since we seem to always note years next to performers names. For an articles like Peter Barlow (Coronation Street) or Susan Barlow, it's practically an identical recap to the Performers section. Kevin Buchanan looks more reasonable because there were multiple consecutive performers, but it still also a rehash.
4. Can we revisit this discussion, in which those involved agreed that |residence= and |home= should be deleted? I'm wondering what current active editors think.
5. I'm also not sure about the appropriateness of |introducer=, though I realize it was added by consensus in 2012. I think |creator= (writer) is notable, but FYI, it is not really the EP who "decides" to introduce a character, or bring them back. Further, Peter Barlow (Coronation Street) is a great example of how potentially insane it is to list every EP who was in charge when the character was reintroduced, as is suggested by the documentation. What does this really lend to the understanding of the character or his/her development? Sourced information about specific situations where someone other than the writer had some impact on the character's use or development can be noted in the article.

Thanks!— TAnthony^Talk 21:48, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

@TAnthony:

Regarding (3) |years=. It's very helpful at Will Horton, where it provides instant clarity, where, because an actor has returned after another actor has been in the role, the dates against the actors cannot be in chrononological order. I imagine it is also helpful at other pages where the same situation has occured. I support its continuation.

Regarding (4) |residence= A character's residence can change so much during its lifetime that the info here is highly likely to be invalid. I'd say it's not essential information, and it seems to be essentially trivia that, though certainly of fan-interest, has little practical meaning. It's not key, introductory, primary information imo.

Regarding (5) |introducer= A soap character can return many times and listing each e.p. when this happens can really overload infoboxes. Moreover, it is not primary information - it is often too much information (to be presented up front). When there *is* an interesting story behind the return of the character, which includes the involvement of executive producers, this info will very likely to already be presented in the body of the article, and it is more helpfully presented there. The displayed name of the field is also problematic. It is not obvious to new readers that it's referring to executive producers, plus a return-story writer is as much a "re-introducer", if not more so, than the executive producer. I could get behind discontinuing it's use for re-introductions, as the "development" section can ably carry this information where it is notable, but perhaps this is really a case of the need for better guidelines, which emphasize good judgement, and which state it is better to use the body of the article than to overload the infobox with re-introducing producers. (Regarding you FYI comment, I don't think it is as clear cut as that - both ew and hw are involved in re-introductions. For example, according to a recent article Days of Our Lives' executive producer Greg Meng was pursuing the possibility of Chandler Massey's return to Days before Carlivati was headwriter. It's also a matter of record that Meng invited Deidre Hall back to the show at a signing event.)

Aliveness Cascade (talk) 14:19, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I believe |appeared= and |only= are mainly used for notable, one episode guest appearances, such as Alison Slater and Dale Madden.

And you're right that |breed= and |owner= do go together. They are a few notable animals, including Bouncer, Bossy, Wellard (GA) and Roly. - JuneGloom07 Talk 18:45, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

3 —— I think it works, especially when there is only one portrayer of a specific role (i.e. Carly Tenney, Nicole Walker, etc. It serves its purpose in my honest point of view.

4 —— I do believe |residence= and |home= should not removed; it's fan-cruft than anything else. Much like why |cause= was removed. I genuinely do not see its served purpose in the field of today's soap articles.

5 —— I am in the believe that |introducer= should include more than one EP if—and only if— the role is recast after being off-canvas for a certain amount of time, or if the character crosses over to another soap opera (i.e. Lauren Fenmore). Though, at the same time, I am also torn on mentioning anything more than the first executive producer(s) to introduce the character, etc. Case in point: at the Anna Devane article — is it truly important to cite Frank Valentini as the "introducer" of Anna Devane, especially given that it was Finola Hughes to return to the role and it was not really an introduction to the character? I do believe there needs to be more specific clarification on when it is appropriate to list more than the initial introducer of a character, otherwise, like you previously cited at the Peter Barlow article, it becomes insane. Though, I must admit, UK/Australian soap opera editors do go a bit over-the=-top with some of the editing chocies they make, especially when it comes to the infobox — as exampled by the now-defunct {{Infobox soap character 2}}. That is just my two-cents on some of these points. livelikemusic talk! 00:15, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

We all seem to be pretty much on the same page with this so far, though it looks like we need to improve the documentation to better explain the uses of |appeared=, |only=, |breed=, and |owner=. And I'm pleasantly surprised that there are decent articles for soap pets LOL. I have a huge problem with "introducer" though, and I'm not even sure how this came about in the first place. The creator (writer) is important in the real world because these people actually get residuals when their characters are used and the writer is no longer with the show. The EP at the time of creation is not really a "thing" that should be tracked in an infobox. It's great if and when we have sourced information within the article documenting an EP's role in bringing in a character, but this seems like the exception rather than the rule, and doesn't necessarily warrant inclusion in an infobox. I'm willing to leave things alone if consensus really loves this information, but as suggested above, is it notable to list the EP every time a character is brought back? That is like listing every writer who has ever written a character. I think this was added with good intentions, but it's gotten out of hand, and we should definitely reshape the guidelines.— TAnthony^Talk 17:57, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I support the removal of home/residence. Gail McIntyre has a long list of residences but it is completely meaningless unless you're a die-hard fan of the show. All it says to me is "she moved around a lot". EastEnders articles haven't used it for a long time for this reason. I'm not sure that the introducer is that important - certainly the creator is, but the introducer is simply the person who was EP for the show at the time the character is introduced, but then again I think it's good to know who made the decision to introducer or bring in a character. That isn't always the EP though, so maybe it's best to remove it? — ᴀnemoneᴘroᴊecтors 14:53, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree with AnemoneProjectors regarding Residence, and also support its removal. — Aliveness Cascade (talk) 16:09, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

With regards to Introduced by I would either support its total removal, or have the notes changed to say that it only be used for the original introducing e.p. where the creator is unknown. I cannot support its use for repeated re-introductions — because the headwriter is at least as important in re-introductions, and to include execs but not headwriters is absurd. Furthermore a list of re-introducing executive producers is *not* key primary information — it's too much information! Notable people involved in re-introducing a character can, and likey will, be mentioned in the development section of the article whether they are writers or producers. — Aliveness Cascade (talk) 16:09, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

So is there any consensus yet? I'd like to see a conclusion reached as I really dislike discussions that just fade away with nothing happening! — ᴀnemoneᴘroᴊecтors 13:34, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi, thank you AP for trying to move this forwards. I think we do have consensus that |residence= and |home= be removed. Regarding |years= (Duration) and |introducer= (Introduced by) I believe we have consensus that the status quo is not okay, but the way forward has not yet reached consensus. I agree wholeheartedly that |years= (Duration) is pointlessly cluttering many infoboxes with info that is already present, and presented better, right above it and below it in |portrayer=, |first= and |last=, eg. at Peter Barlow, Susan Barlow, Dorian Lord. I believe |years= (Duration) is best not used in these cases, as it is pointless messy clutter, and I've just deleted Duration at Bill Horton for this very reason - and it looks way better without it! I propose that |years= (Duration) be used in future for cases where the character has been killed off and then had a return-from-the-dead storyline, as with Will Horton and Den Watts. In such cases it is providing pertinent key info, that |portrayer=, |first= and |last= do not convey. If others agree, then it is a question of creating new wording for the usage note. With regards to |introducer=, I propose that we implement a complete change in its use, only using it when the creating writer is unknown, and not use it for re-introductions at all. We cannot in my opinion keep giving special credit to executive producers whilst leaving re-introducing headwriters uncredited. It is completely unjustifiable, and creates a mess of Way-Too-Much-Information in infoboxes. Aliveness Cascade (talk) 16:54, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree 100% with everything you just wrote.— TAnthony^Talk 17:04, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks TA! As a counterexample regarding |years= (Duration), its use at Marlena Evans looks really neat. In her case, with only one actor (Deidre Hall), years of portrayal haven't been shown against her name, and |years= (Duration) alone is used to display them. And it looks great! So ... maybe we need to have the usage note encompass this use, where there is just one actor. Aliveness Cascade (talk) 14:33, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Aliases used

Infoboxes really need to distinguish between pseudonyms and true names, and I propose a new category that displays as "Aliases used:" to contrast with "Other names:" which would then just be used for true names. I introduced the idea here Aliveness Cascade (talk) 20:45, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

The absence of Adoptive and Step siblings is anomalous. Please voice support for their inclusion.

We have Adoptive Parents, Adoptive father, Adoptive mother, Adoptive children, Adoptive sons, Adoptive daughters.

And yet we don't have Adoptive sibling, Adoptive brothers, Adoptive sisters!

We have Stepparents, Stepfather, Stepmother, Stepchildren, Stepsons, Stepdaughters.

And yet we don't have Stepsiblings, Stepbrothers, Stepsister!

It's a real gap in provision! Adoptive and step siblings are just as much siblings as half siblings, which are included! All siblings are part of the nuclear family, and all of them merit representation in the infobox!

Articles currently use makeshift work arounds using brackets. Let's have a neater cleaner look, and put them in proper categories! Aliveness Cascade (talk) 00:21, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Here's the thing. If you want stepsiblings and adoptive siblings to appear neatly in infoboxes, they need their own parameters. For example, if we do a make-shift stepbrother or adoptive brother now, it has to be added to the full brother category with a (step) or (adoptive) in brackets. The problem with this? It's in the wrong place! For things to look neat all the biological siblings should appear together, and then the non-biological siblings together. Now, if you add a makeshift (step) brother, or a makeshift (adoptive) brother they will appear above actual biological siblings, above full sisters and half-siblings which is odd. Now I get in real-life a siblings a sibling and it doesn't matter, but here, when we're trying to present character relations in an encyclopedia, yes, the presentation matters. It looks weird with a stepbrother appearing above full sisters. So I propose these new categories, and they should appear under the biological siblings, like so:

• siblings
• half-siblings
• adoptive siblings
• stepsiblings

... And I've put adoptive siblings above stepsiblings here, but that could go either way. -- Aliveness Cascade (talk) 08:42, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

An example of the unsatisfactory status quo from Eric Brady is:

• Brother: Brady Black (step)
• Sister: Sami Brady

... followed by half-brothers, and half-sisters. And it's weird! In this case, giving the stepbrother precedence, above Eric's biological full sister and twin Sami, is clearly wrong. And Brady Black really should appear in the list because Eric and Brady are constantly talked of as brothers on the show. That's why we need proper categories! Please support! Aliveness Cascade (talk) 16:49, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Classifications

Classification info can be presented better.

Spaces are better!

Currently we see forms like this:

• Present; regular
• Former, recurring

The semicolon and comma in both cases is superflous and are best removed. A space is just fine!! And it looks way cleaner with just a space!!

• Present regular
• Former recurring

Visiting's right

"Recurring" is being used in two entirely different ways. The correct way I contend is for a supporting character who appears on and off. The incorrect way is when a former regular character/actor returns for a temporary reprisal. This is clearly not the same thing, and we'd best not label it as such! Typically, when former stars of a show return for a temporary stint, they are in the thick of story, and appear as much as contract regulars. Plus to call such a reprisal "recurring" is nonsense, as they are clearly contracted to appear for the specific story they have been brought back in for. Such a character/actor visit would be properly described as "Visiting", and I propose that we use this term for characters currently visiting. It simplifies the situation too! A visiting character/actor may be on a lot, or they maybe on a little, and whilst it's happening we don't really know. We only know how much they're used until its over! "Visiting" covers everything perfectly!

Visiting time is over

When a visit by a former regular is over, the character's classification is best described as "Former regular". Presently we see "Present, recurring" for this situation - and that is misinformation! Let's please have rationality-based classifications! If a character was a former regular, that is *always* notable, and should appear in the infobox.

Presentation - putting it together

When a classification has two parts, such as "Returning" and "Former regular" the clearest way to display this is on two lines. I propose we do this going forwards. Like this:

• Returning
• Former regular

For a character/star currently visiting:

• Visiting
• Former regular

For a departing regular:

• Present regular
• Departing

Note, I am using bullets for clarity in this presentation. These would be unbulleted in infoboxes. - Aliveness Cascade (talk) 04:44, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

While I generally like this kind of detail and precision, our whole soap character classification system may be spilling into original research, as we are sort of inventing our own terms, and not citing in our lists the sources that assert terms like "recurring". There is a discussion on this at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Television#The_broader_problem_of_OR-based,_TV/film-related_labeling_using_reviewer_and_film-student_jargon which some of you may want to join. I'm defending the use of "series regular", "recurring", and "guest" because the trade publications use them, but the ongoing discussion has got me thinking how far we stray in some cases (not just soaps).— TAnthony^Talk 14:12, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

In this case, I believe your concern is misplaced. The soap media announce when actors are returning for temporary visits; just as they announce when actors go from "contract" to "recurring", and vice versa. This is certainly true for the US soap media, of which I am familiar. — Aliveness Cascade (talk) 05:10, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes but when you start defining "Former", "Present", "Visiting", "Departing", etc. you are inventing classifications that are not designated in the sources. I think we tend to be a little myopic in our practices in this project because we believe that soaps are so different than other TV shows so we justify a lot of stuff that wouldn't fly in a "regular" TV article. Our infobox is a prefect example of that LOL. We are technically a subproject of WikiProject television, and someday our standards will be held up against theirs, and it'll be ugly.— TAnthony^Talk 17:34, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Question on using em dashes

When it comes to displaying how a character is married in the infobox and the marriage is ongoing, would it be correct to use em dashes to say that the marriage was presently going on in the box? Like for example if someone got married to somebody today, would it be alright to put the year and an em dash next to the spouses name (ex: Sarah Horton (2019–)) in the infobox? Because if you just put the 2019 without the em dash, it looks like the marriage has ended. I'm asking this because someone who is acting like he owns the pages for US soap opera characters is insisting that the year of marriage be closed and not include an em dash. Arjoccolenty (talk) 19:49, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Per MOS:DATETOPRES, we're not supposed to use open-ended date spans like 2019–, we should be using 2019–present. But I know some editors have been touchy about this as well because 2019 is the present. I'm not sure where/if that is in the guidelines. I should also mention that it's actually an EN dash used for date ranges, not em (the n dash is shorter than the m).— TAnthony^Talk 20:45, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Oh OK. Just wnated to make sure. Thank you for telling me. Arjoccolenty (talk) 02:09, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Half-siblings included?

Just wanted to get a quick consensus and ask what the rule is for this before I go any further with trying to reason with someone so I know that I am correct and not arguing about a rule that doesn't get enforced anymore. Half-siblings, no matter HOW notable they are to each other are always added right? Every single time they are put up on the infobox regardless of whether or not they met? I thought that they did (looking at Eastenders its the only way Donna Ludlow could be on Ben Mitchell's page or Andrew Cotton being on Nick Cotton's page) but I have someone insisting that isn't the case. So could someone correct me if I'm wrong? Arjoccolenty (talk) 01:14, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Problem with infobox

{{Infobox soap character}} calls for open dates to be labeled as "YYYY–," however, per MOS:DATETOPRES, it states: Do not use incomplete-looking constructions such as 1982– and 1982–... . The infobox templates need to be updated in accordance to the manual of style. livelikemusic talk! 17:39, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Yeah I don't think it's controversial to update the template documentation to fall in line with the MOS. That bit was added in 2012 by an editor who I remember but has been inactive since 2013, and I'm not sure what the MOS said then. Anyway, I'm going to attempt a fix right now but please feel free to tweak what I do as necessary, you're a respected editor I think we can trust!— TAnthony^Talk 17:48, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

@TAnthony: I just didn't want to edit anything without bringing it up first; at one point, 2019– was acceptable, but the MoS changed within the last year or so, etc. And thank you for that compliment, it is greatly appreciated! livelikemusic talk! 18:01, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Aunts and Uncles by marriage included

On nearly all pages that use this infobox, it's only had blood uncles and blood aunts in the "Aunts" and "Uncles" sections of the infobox, we should include Aunts and Uncles by marriage as well. 82.17.221.173 (talk) 17:15, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

The current usage is intentional. We avoid listing characters who are not directly related as a means to avoid clutter and manage the size of soap opera character infoboxes, which tend to be very full of content. With the amount of times characters marry and remarry, we'd be adding a LOT of relations by marriage. And where does it stop? Cousins by marriage? Grandparents by marriage?— TAnthony^Talk 21:06, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

You add stepmothers and stepfathers, I only said aunts and uncles, not all soap characters have that many marriages, I only said aunts and uncles nothing after that, okay. 82.17.221.173 (talk) 17:18, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes but if a character has multiple marriages, that can create for their children many aunts and uncles by marriage. How is it essential to list these people? The infobox is meant to explain basic connections between characters and aid in navigation. It is not intended as a list of every related character. The multitude of family member parameters are already overused and borderline encyclopedic, we have to draw the line somewhere. And I would argue that while a stepparent is directly connected to the child, stepgrandparents etc. are not. Complicated or tenuous connections should be explained within the article body if they are notable, rather than forcing them into the infobox. The only exception I see is if a character has a significant/notable connection to a distant/unrelated relative, like being raised by a stepgrandmother or an aunt-by-marriage.— TAnthony^Talk 19:36, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

not what I meant, I meant aunts and uncles by marriage, someone who marries someone's aunt or uncle, not like the aunts or uncles of stepparents, that'd be stupid, it should have been obvious what I meant. 82.17.221.173 (talk) 23:13, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I never said aunts and uncles of stepparents, maybe you're the one who's not understanding. My uncle has been married three times. I have no real relationship with any of his wives. They should not be listed in my character article. Period. As a matter of fact I actually have seven aunts and uncles (my parents' siblings). Adding them to my infobox, as well as their children, my first cousins, is enough clutter, I really don't see the need to add all their husbands and wives too. The Family portion of Victoria Lord's infobox is already 8.75 inches long, we don't need to add her aunt's husband as well. MOS:INFOBOX and specifically MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE note, in part, that an infobox should include only key facts that appear in the article. This template's exhaustive amount of fields already violates this guideline, because Viki Lord's aunt is not mentioned in the article, nor should she be. Anyway, I've made my opinion clear. Perhaps someone else will agree with you.— TAnthony^Talk 00:53, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

It seems like you were implying that you thought I meant stepparents' aunts and uncles, anyway, just because you had no relationship with your uncle's wives doesn't mean some soap characters didn't, so please just shut up because now you're just irritating me, at least some soap characters will have relationships with their uncles' and aunts' spouses, also it's a guideline, not a clear rule, the spouses of their aunts and uncles could be close to some characters in some soaps, it will depend on whether they have a close relationship with the character (i.e, maternal or paternal figure, idolizer, etc). 82.17.221.173 (talk) 01:33, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Shut up? Oooh, I'm irritating you? Cool. Totally my intent. But excuse me Miss/Mr. IP-who's-been-editing-for-5-minutes-or-is-hiding-behind-an-IP, you said what you said, which is "not like the aunts or uncles of stepparents". And you're wrong. A guideline IS a rule. I agree that a significant relationship should be reflected in an infobox IF it's significant enough to be mentioned in the actual body of the article. But obviously I'm not monitoring your edits so feel free to add aunts and uncles by marriage to whatever terrible article you wish.— TAnthony^Talk 05:26, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

A guideline and a rule are different things:

Rule

one of a set of explicit or understood regulations or principles governing conduct or procedure within a particular area of activity.

Guideline

a general rule, principle, or piece of advice see guidelines are not official rules just pieces of advice and general rules and have you know I've been editing on wikipedia for a long time and just saying how long someone's been editing and then putting terms like Mr. and Miss in front of it is not an insult, you should know that. 82.17.221.173 (talk) 08:41, 4 July 2020 (UTC) couldn't we just put (by marriage) next to them. 82.17.221.173 (talk) 08:46, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Be sure to read the WP Soaps guideline for this and the template documentation, but do whatever you want.— TAnthony^Talk 18:26, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Family: Those who can only be included and rules are...quite outdated?

Dennis Rickman
EastEnders character
Portrayed by	Harry Hickles (2012–2015) Bleu Landau (2015–)
Duration	2012–
First appearance	Episode 4476 13 August 2012
Classification	Present; recurring
Introduced by	Lorraine Newman
In-universe information Occupation Student Family Watts/Mitchell Father Dennis Rickman Mother Sharon Mitchell Adoptive father Phil Mitchell Half-brothers Ben Mitchell Raymond Half-sisters Louise Mitchell Grandfathers Gavin Sullivan

Like I say, the views on families in soaps that can be included and rules are so outdated. Say for example if Angie Watts was knocking about in EastEnders when Dennis was introduced or even now and they had a typical grandparent/grandchild relationship - similar to that of Lou Beale to her grandchildren - and then either Sharon's birth mother rocked up, a blood relative would automatically trump an adoptive relative, despite the fact an adoptive relative could be far more significant.

And speaking of adoption, characters can now have more that one adoptive mum or dad, so I think it should be changed to "adoptive mothers" and "adoptive fathers".

And then siblings - sometimes, again, step-siblings are far more notable than half and full like Leanne Battersby and Toyah Battersby who grew up together and then take the likes of David Wicks and Ian Beale who went from like to hatred because of the affair David had with Cindy and in recent storylines, hate each other. And then there's Tiffany Butcher and Whitney Dean, who might not be blood, but share Bianca Butcher as a mum (or guardian or whatever), but Whitney has been raised alongside Tiffany, Liam and Morgan as their sister and can't be included.

I know there's a bit of a thing about (adoptive) and (step) being noted in infoboxes and wanting to scrap - why don't they just be scrapped? And write the relationship in storylines or lead? Like (using Dennis again under the idea that he has been adopted by Phil) and I think his relation to Louise as stepsister is noted in storylines, but if it is mentioned definitively, then it can be updated:

Call me dramatic upon this, but I think by saying that further relatives that aren't blood cannot be added is a bit of an insult to people in real life, maybe even damaging to a younger viewer which soaps do have whether we like it or not. Grangehilllover (talk) 18:41, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for being so late - I did not see this until now. Personally, I think this: 1.) All main relatives (siblings, grandparents, cousins, aunts, uncles etc.) should be included, whether they have met or not, as they are still related. 2.) For "Other relatives", I think all relatives that the character has met or been with should be mentioned, even if they haven't shared a significant storyline together. 3.) I think step relatives should be included if they had a significant relationship. 4.) I think great-grandchildren (and beyond) should always be included. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 21:30, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

The problem is, the infobox is intended to be a concise overview of facts already present in the article, and should not be introducing new facts not mentioned elsewhere. We allow extended relatives for navigation, character understanding, and completeness, but we're already creating excessively unwieldy infoboxes without including "great-grandchildren (and beyond)".— TAnthony^Talk 21:17, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Past or Former

I thought I'd start a discussion here to see if the template needs changing. DaniloDaysOfOurLives has been changing character articles classifications from "former; regular" to "past; regular" because that's what the template uses. I don't know of any soap articles that use "past; regular". It's got me wondering if the template needs updating or changing as opposed to all the articles being changed 5 albert square (talk) 20:16, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Hey! All of the USA soap operas use "Past", and on the template it says to use past, present or future. All the USA articles have changed within the last year and a half or so and I started to change them so that they would match the USA ones, to avoid confusion. Personally, I think that it would be better to use past as it matches with present and future, and so that it matches with the USA articles. I also think past is easier to understand than former. I don't minf changing all of the rest of the soap opera articles so that there is no confusion. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 20:54, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I believe that this should have been discussed more prior to mass changes. I am not sure why US related soap opera articles changed? If you look at the subject in discussion - it is fiction. So state in the classification field that the character is part of the past ignores the element of fiction. The work of fiction still exists can be viewed again. If I was watching an episode from 10 years ago, those characters would still be there.

Google the definition of the two words:

• Past: "gone by in time and no longer existing."
• Former: "having previously been a particular thing."

Surely by this definition it should be kept as former?Rain the 1 21:17, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree with using former-- 5 albert square (talk) 01:51, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

@DaniloDaysOfOurLives: is still performing the mass change.. so I presume this is not up for discussion.Rain the 1 08:42, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

@5 albert square, DaniloDaysOfOurLives, and Raintheone: I think for now, the changes to "past" shouldn't be reverted, since it's technically correct per the template. However, I do agree with the use of "former" more, and I agree that the template needs to be updated to reflect those definitions above. – DarkGlow (✉) 21:39, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

DaniloDaysOfOurLives could you please respond here? You're still doing the mass changes and so far the consensus is going that the template needs changing not the articles.-- 5 albert square (talk) 00:00, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Even though I changed a whole bunch of these because of the template documentation, I also prefer "former", especially based on the definition above. Does anyone know why the changes were made to the US soap articles? Did they hold a discussion somewhere? - JuneGloom07 Talk 00:28, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Hey! I apologise for the late reply - I did not see these, and I wasn't online recently due to bad mental health. Personally, I think that we should stick to using "Past" rather than "former" for the following reasons:

1.) It fits more with "Present" and "future" - "former' is the odd one out, and I think it is important to be consistent.

2.) USA soaps use "Past" instead of "former" - I think again it is important to be consistent, as some readers may think that "Past" and "Former" mean different things.

3.) All of the Wikipedia soap pages use "past characters" as their headings, and so does the BBC website - they use "past characters" rather than former for EastEnders, and the wikia fandoms use "Past characters" too - again I think this is better for consistency

4.) Past is simpler than Former - "Former; regular" seems a bit too long and complicated, and generally "Past" is more well-known than former, so it can be more accommodating to those who do are learning English or have trouble reading - Wikipedia is about presenting information for those who need and want it, and this can help with being as clear as we can.

5.) It took a lot of work changing all of the articles to "Past", and they are nearly all done - all of the EastEnders, Hollyoaks and Doctors characters are done, and more than 60% of the Emmerdale and Coronation street articles have been corrected. To go back would take a lot of time and would have been a waste of the past several weeks.

6.) "Past" and "Former" are often both used quite interchangeably - on wikipedia some articles of deceased people often begin with that they were a "former writer", even if by the definitions above "past" seems more appropriate, and vice versa. I was looking through the Internet and the general consensus was that there is not much different between the two, although some websites stated that often "former" is used when they are the thing that was used before the Current, which is not fitting with past fictional characters. I think "Past" (or even "Previous") is much more simple and easier to distinguish.

7.) The soap template is in an in universe style, and so in the universe style they are technically "Past" characters as they no longer appear on the show. Thank you so much and Happy New year! 😊 DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 05:36, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

@DaniloDaysOfOurLives: I think while this is being discussed, it may be best to hold off making any further changes. - JuneGloom07 Talk 01:21, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

I thought I'd add my opinion here. Firstly, I just wanted to say how much I appreciate DaniloDaysOfOurLives's commitment to changing everything. However, my support would go to the use of former, rather than past. However, something that has caught my eye is a comment from JuneGloom07 at DaniloDaysOfOurLives's talk page. They mentioned a discussion about the use of past/present/future at all, especially since older episodes are now being broadcast and I think this could be worth discussing. Should we even have use this or should classification just simply be Regular/Main character, Recurring character, Guest character? Soaper1234 - talk 11:37, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

I'd like to echo Soaper1234's comment by stating that I have always felt that the need to specify whether a character is past/former, present or future is unnecessary, since we have parameters for first/last appearance, as well as a years parameter. However, if there is going to be anything, I would support the use of former. – DarkGlow (✉) 12:07, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

First of all, thank you so much @Soaper1234 for the recognition! And I think that that would be a good idea, especially that some of the characters are currently appearing in Classics episodes online. Should we just scrap "Past/former, present and future"? I tried it with Peggy Mitchell and it seems fine. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 19:43, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

I find it difficult to agree with some of your reasons Danilo. I think you misinterpreted the info box being wholly in-universe when it includes information on portrayer, series name, first and last appearance. The classification field is also based on a real world aspect. You obviously feel strongly about this as you went to a lot of effort explaining your reasons but I don't support it. As for removing it all together, I am unsure. Do we all want it removed? I think it was perfectly fine as it was.Rain the 1 17:21, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't see what was wrong with it before.-- 5 albert square (talk) 17:00, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I'd still support both the classification being changed back to former, as well as removing it altogether. I can see both points being made and I agree with each. However, I do not agree with the usage of past per those definitions above. – DarkGlow (✉) 17:54, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Are we in agreement then? To use former? -- 5 albert square (talk) 17:38, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I've say so. Is there any kind of bot/tool that would be able to perform such a mass change in seconds? I imagine not, but someone might know of something. – DarkGlow (contribs • talk) 00:33, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Can someone with AWB do it, please! I don't think I could stand changing them all back again. lol - JuneGloom07 Talk 03:41, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I applied and got accepted for AWB rights especially to perform the changes, but I could not figure out how the hell to work that program... Hoping someone else knows how lol – DarkGlow (contribs • talk) 23:11, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm now doing this :-) — 🌼📽️AnemoneProjectors💬 18:21, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I went to change the template to Past/Former, and then I saw that it says "Do not use Past". Why?? The USA soap articles have been using Past, and I don't think we should ban Past altogether... Could someone please Change it to Past/former?

Or should the US soaps also be changed to former? Isn't that part of the consensus for this template? That all articles using it use former instead of past? — 🌼📽️AnemoneProjectors💬 18:55, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree with AnemoneProjectors. Since we reached a consensus on the template, surely every example of the template should match. We agreed that "past" is the wrong word to use on the British/Australian soaps, so that logic should extend to American/Asian/African soaps and telenovelas; there are currently 2985 uses of the template. – DarkGlow (contribs • talk) 10:26, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

But "Don't use Past" is a bit much? I was saying that we should match the US soaps and people wanted to use Former, but I don't think it's fair that US soaps have to change all of the articles because of this... DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 03:52, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Relationships

An issue has occurred over whether to include Bex Fowler in the infobox of Terry Cant. I was under the impression that only the other relatives section needed to have notability over the relationships. I firmly believe that Bex should be included under the "grandaughters" section as Bex IS his grandaughter, whether they share scenes or not. To not include it gives the impression that Terry has no known grandchildren, whilst that is clearly not true. If someone is watching the show and they hear Terry referencing Bex, they may go on the infobox to see if they related, but not see her there, and hence get confused. Also, we do not know what will happen - the characters may share scenes in the future if Bex returns, he may mention her, they could have a storyline off screen (e.g. Terry is heartbroken when Bex refuses to visit London to meet her, or something like that) etc., and I think that it should be included, as not including it is withholding information and a bit of a waste of the infobox. I think that all the parameters (parents, aunts/uncles, siblings, grandchildren, grandparents, cousins and nieces/nephews) should be filled, and then the other relatives section should include those that have shared scenes/are important to the character (personally I would include all relatives that they're related to, but I know that it can get a bit too long and that other editors won't support it). DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 14:36, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Also to clarify - I think including some relatives and not including others is really strange and confusing. E.G. someone may go on Sonia's page and see that Bex is her daughter, but see that she isn't on Terry's account, and could be confused. (Also, other vandalism occurs and people mix up the characters, e.g. a couple years ago someone kept putting Liz McDonald as the mother of Belle Dingle, and they could assume that it is a mistake/vandalism). Also, I agree with the discussion that was started above - just because someone doesn't share scenes with someone it doesnt mean that they're not notable. A lot of people do not see their relatives much but still love them dearly and they mean a lot to eachother, and that is true in EastEnders, a show that cares and focuses a lot on families, where characters have had children and have families grow etc, and we should make the infoboxes clear to help viewers when watching the show. When I started watching the show the infoboxes and pages really helped me understand the show more and hence made me able to watch it better, and hence that is why this issue means so much to me. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 14:42, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

This issue isn't as deep as you make it out to be – the sole reason we don't include every relation is because it clogs up the infobox, as soaps have so many characters and large families. Character infoboxes should only include notable relationships deciphered by scenes they share on-screen( an off-screen storyline could be an exceptional circumstance if it was covered by WP:RS). This is because Wikipedia is not a family tree for soap characters (see WP:INDISCRIMINATE). – DarkGlow • 14:46, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

But... it is one character extra... also someone can't be told what is and isn't deep. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 14:47, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Sure, it's only one character that's hardly anything. But it's more the principle of the rule; if Bex can be listed within Terry's article, one could argue that every single Dingle family member on Emmerdale can be listed in an infobox. And the person doing that edit may say: "Well look at Terry Cant's infobox! It's alright there, why not here?" – it can't be one rule for one and another for another. – DarkGlow • 15:02, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Family Inclusion Guidelines Change Needed?

So personally, I believe that all people in close generations related to one should be included in the infobox.

Please hear me out. If someone is related to someone, they are related. Even if they haven't had on-screen time with each other, they are still related, and it doesn't particularly make sense not to include a cousin (for example) who hasn't shared a storyline with one. I'm going to use Neighbours' Canning family as an example. Harley Canning hasn't shared any storylines with his cousin, Xanthe Canning, however they are still related. The infobox literally has the words "family" on it, however not all family is included.

What Xanthe Canning's family ibox looks like…
In-universe information Father Gary Canning Mother Brooke Butler Half-brothers Kyle Canning Half-sisters Jesse Grandmothers Sheila Canning

What Xanthe Canning's family ibox should look like...
In-universe information Father Gary Canning Mother Brooke Butler Half-brothers Kyle Canning Half-sisters Jessie Grandfathers Frank Canning Grandmothers Sheila Canning Uncles Frank Canning Jr Aunts Naomi Canning First cousins Dane Canning Harley Canning Levi Canning

I understand that the reason for this is so that space is stored up and I know that every infobox used to include all the various family members and I personally think we should revert back to that system.

If we were to revert back, I do think that we need to eventually draw the line at some family members. I think great grandparents/uncles/aunts (and higher) should not be included, unless the character has shared a storyline with them. So for example, Frederick Canning wouldn't be added to Kyle Canning's page because they are five or so generations apart. I also think that other relationships like second cousins (and third cousins, fourth cousins, etc.) shouldn't be included unless storylines have been shared. I am just saying that immediate family (sisters, brothers, fathers, mothers, grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, nieces, nephews and grandchildren) should ALWAYS be included.

I want to make something really clear; I am in no way trying to start drama here, I am just expressing my thoughts. Please do not start an argument from this, I just want a civil conversation and also to hear everyone else's thoughts. Thank you. - Therealscorp1an (talk)

I 100% agree! If you see the previous discussion that I started I was saying the exact same thing... I really don't think it makes sense to include some family members and not others... DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 02:29, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

👍 Thanks for your support! I really do think the inclusion guidelines need a bit of changing/updating - Therealscorp1an (talk) 01:36, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I assume you mean the inclusion guidelines need changing rather than the parameters, as there is no issue with the actual parameters. The current inclusion guideline is "Relations need only be noted if the relationship holds some notable significance for the character in question." So my question to you is why do characters that hold no notable significance to a character need to be included in their infobox? Including characters they've never interacted with just seems strange; if they are not mentioned in the storyline/development section, why include them in the infobox? – DarkGlow • 12:06, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Not including every relative (outside of direct relatives) makes a lot of sense actually, especially those who have never interacted with the character or appeared in the series. Relatives should have some notable significance to the character in question, and I think they should have shared a storyline at least. The infoboxes are just an overview of the character, so the relationships mentioned in them should also be mentioned in the article at some point. If we go by the example presented above, why is Xanthe's uncle there? A character never introduced to the show, and never mentioned until long after her departure. How do you explain his presence in the ibox in the article? Same with the cousins and aunt she never interacted with? They have a far more significant relationship with her half-brother, who actually shared scenes with them and was the reason at least two of them were introduced.

I think WP:SOAPS says it best: For most characters, relatives listed should be limited to closer family and generations having some relevance to the character in question. Remember, more distant relations (step-great-grandchildren?) will be noted in the infoboxes of other characters more closely related to them. This is especially important for long-running characters, who tend to have an excessive amount of relations. - JuneGloom07 Talk 00:21, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

"Why do characters that hold no notable significance to a character need to be included in their infobox?" Because they're still related. Okay, so following on from the logic that's been stated here, lemme give you an example. Hypothetically, let's just say your grandfather passed away when you were young and you never met him. Because you never met him, are you just going to say that he's not a member of your family? No, I didn't think so. It's the exact same situation here. "Including every relative" is not what I said, in fact I specifically stated that great grandparents, second cousins, etc. shouldn't be included unless storylines have been shared. I am saying that - regardless on-screen time or storylines - all close relatives (sisters, brothers, fathers, mothers, grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, nieces, nephews and grandchildren) should be included no matter what. And why? Because they are still closely related. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 01:36, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree. It didn't make sense to pick and choose which relatives DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 03:21, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Current or Present (Neighbours)

Hey. So apologies if this has been discussed before, but it was on my mind and I thought I’d bring it up. So I’ve seen the use of “Current; recurring” and also “Present; recurring”. I believe current is the incorrect way of doing it per a consensus or something? Personally I do think “current” sounds a little better rolling off the tongue, but that’s another discussion. I just wanted to ask what the situation regarding the wording is? Regards, Therealscorp1an (talk), 09:00, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Hey — Present is what should be used – some of the neighbours articles used to use "current" but this has changed, so that all articles used are consistent. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 12:46, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Okay! Thank you - Therealscorp1an (talk), 21:22, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

New family parameters

Maybe we should add like an option to the family section of the infobox called “Step brothers” and “Step sisters”. The command thingys to activate them would be “stepbrothers” and “stepsisters” (sorry, my terminology isn’t exactly on point). The reason I suggest this is because I’ve seen pages where stepbrothers are simply listed as brothers but with “(step)” next to the brother’s name and it kind of looks awkward. You may be worried that it’s going to be hard to control the step siblings because soap opera characters typically get married quite a few times, however it’s the same situation with step parents and step children. Thoughts anyone? - Therealscorp1an (talk) 06:15, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

I support this. I see no reason not to add this, it seems useful. I would also propose a step-sibling parameter too, for inclusivity. Step-siblings are a common enough relative that all three of the parameters would be receive use and would be beneficial. – DarkGlow • 06:57, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 10:56, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your support! 👍 - Therealscorp1an (talk) 12:27, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

What about a possible "adoptive brothers"/"adoptive sisters"/"adoptive siblings" parameter as well? - Therealscorp1an (talk) 05:29, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

I think it would be apt to add an adoptive parameter too if the aim is being inclusive with non-nuclear families, so I support that. – DarkGlow • 21:08, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! @DarkGlow: So how do we actually make this suggestion become a reality? - Therealscorp1an (talk) 21:17, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Hey. I wanted to say that when you add these, could you please also add "half-siblings"? Some editors prefer to use "siblings" rather than brothers, sisters, half sisters and half brothers, but I really dislike this as there is a difference between half siblings and siblings. Having "half-siblings" and "siblings" would be great as you could distinguish between the two. It would also be good for non binary characters DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 02:14, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply, I've just seen these. The infobox is template protected, which means only administrators (such as AnemoneProjectors) or template editors can add to the template. I'd wait for more votes of support to gain full consensus before requesting changes though. To be clear for anyone reading the discussion, the current requests are for the additions of step-brothers, step-sisters, step-siblings, adoptive brothers, adoptive sisters, adoptive siblings and half-siblings. – DarkGlow • 20:43, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

@AnemoneProjectors, Raintheone, 5 albert square, and JuneGloom07: Sorry to disturb you guys, just thought I'd ping you in to hear your thoughts. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 01:36, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

No. Not needed for the reason the template already gives. Adding them will just make some infoboxes far too long and complex. They're only supposed to give a brief synopsis not the entire history 5 albert square (talk) 22:58, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

If half-brothers and half-sisters already exist, why shouldn't half-siblings? It is a very similar situation with adoptive parents and stepparents too. Why should some exist and not others? If you want to argue that adding these additions will give an entire history overview for a character, the same thing could be said with other non-nuclear parameters that are currently in the template. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 02:21, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree. Half siblings should 100% added. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 02:53, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Since I was tagged, here is what I think. Your reason for requesting a sibling parameter is positive, thoughtful and as DarkGlow stated it is good for inclusivity. However, how many non-binary soap characters are there? Are there enough to warrant a mass change? Surely adding it will allow just create inconsistent layouts across shows. Some may add it by accident and some may pick and choose which they prefer. Adoptive siblings would potentially add to the issue already present. When character is revealed not to be the biological parent to another character, IPs and random editors list them as an adoptive parent. No adoption process takes place. If someone does decides to adopt another character then that seems relevant. Why are they automatically an adoptive sibling worth listing though? Step siblings are not blood relatives and are not important. When soap characters have numerous marriages, their children would tally up endless step siblings. Most will never really share storylines. More work. You have to draw the line some where. What next? Pets and second cousins twice removed. Over the years various discussions have seen parameters removed and the clutter kept to a minimum. Let's try and not undo the progress.Rain the 1 23:57, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

↑ Pretty much this. I also oppose the addition of more "adoptive" fields. Why are we singling out the adopted characters? In the shows they are considered family, so instead of "(adoptive)" notes and fields, just include them in the ibox like blood relatives. The article's development section should be used to explain family connections and history. - JuneGloom07 Talk 02:39, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Absolutely what Rain said. Infoboxes on fictional elements are meant to contain minimal "in universe" information, so adding more of it would be a bad thing. — 🌼📽️AnemoneProjectors💬 17:11, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Clarification on alias

I've noticed an increase in the additions of a character's full names and nicknames to the alias parameter and wanted to start a discussion to clarify what we consider as an alias. I don't consider a character having a middle name or a shortened forename (eg Zackary instead of Zack) as an alias, because it's not really a different name… Another issue is that 99% of the time, the additions are unsourced and could easily lead to any random names being added. It also leads to the addition of in-universe information which adds to the length of the infobox. Perhaps, based on what other editors think, we could update the infobox documentation to prevent this. – DarkGlow • 21:09, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I'd also appreciate a bit more clarification about which names can be included in the template documentation. It shouldn't be used as a place to add unsourced or uncredited full/middle names that have been removed from the lead. We should still follow MOS:TVCAST, which says All names should be referred to as credited, or by common name supported by a reliable source. I would also argue that middle names could be considered fancruft. If it's important to a storyline or it's been discussed in the media, then it maybe mention it in a characterisation or development section instead. - JuneGloom07 Talk 22:45, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

It really is fancruft to include middle names in the alias field. These names are rarely used more than once on-screen. A usual scenario is a wedding storyline where the couple's vows reveal a comedic middle name for a character. The name may never be referenced again in the script but it gets included here like it is of importance and it is not. Nicknames which are shortened versions of the forename are pointless additions too.Rain the 1 22:04, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree with the both of you and think that the documentation needs to be updated to include the need for sourcing on an alias where not credited. – DarkGlow • 22:19, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

I also agree that the alias parameter needs to be updated and/or needs clarification. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 22:46, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

@DarkGlow: I think I missed the update to the documentation, but something about credited names only needs to be added. Otherwise, we'll just get a bunch of fancrufty middle names with a cite episode as the source. The field needs to be for reliably sourced married names, family names, or genuine aliases that characters have gone by. Middle names, if they're important or mentioned in storylines/sources, can be added to development sections, like I did for Jamie Clarke. - JuneGloom07 Talk 21:09, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Civil partner

Hello. I thought this would be a suitable place to bring this question up. I am just wondering what would constitute the civil partner parameter being used in an infobox? - Therealscorp1an (talk) 06:03, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

For when someone has a civil partnership ceremony. It's not as common nowadays, but Jack and Denise on EastEnders had one last year. It was common for same-sex couples to get one before the legalisation of gay marriage too. – DarkGlow • 08:34, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Other characters who have had it include Johnny and Paul from Emmerdale (2008), Zoe and Emma from Emmerdale (1996), Ste and Doug from Hollyoaks (2012), Molly and TJ from General Hospital (2021) and several others 😊 DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 13:09, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Residence/home parameters

I'd like to open up a discussion on the usage of the residence/home parameters. I often feel that the usage adds cruft to the infobox and I am at the point of saying we should deprecate the parameters. Some of the usage is somewhat justified but not to the point of cluttering the infobox, and perhaps would be more appropriate in the development and/or storyline sections because what does it add to the ibox? Another issue aside from cruft is the level of unsourced content it adds to an article. I've noticed that over recent times, many unsourced and originally researched fictional addresses have been added to the parameters. I feel that it's worth noting that the parameters were already deprecated some time ago on the non-soap character infobox and the removal reasons are comparable for this ibox too. Can I get some thoughts on this? – DarkGlow • 16:07, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Pinging some soap editors for comments; JuneGloom07, Raintheone, Soaper1234 and Blanchey. – DarkGlow • 12:48, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

@DarkGlow: the reason I often update the character‘s home is because I felt as though it may be of interest to our readers, although I never usually changed the residences of former characters and I even removed it from ones like Declan Macey. however, this proposal of yours DarkGlow has made me realise that actually this probably is something that would only interest real big fans like myself, not most readers since not many people would probably know what ‘woodbine cottage’ etc is since it’s rarely mentioned on screen. I will admit most of the information I got from fandom although I didn’t source it because as I have seen elsewhere, in these cases, the show acts as the source. I think it would be completely justified to remove the home/residence box. Blanchey (talk) 16:04, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

I support the removal of residences. Very fancruft and subject to change regularly. Soaper1234 - talk 15:54, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Consensus has found |residence= crufty and unnecessary in various past discussions, including this one and this one. I seem to recall it being removed at some point, but it's obviously there now and I think it should be removed.— TAnthony^Talk 19:49, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree with removing residence, however think home should stay for the reasons given above. The edit request below says that a consensus was reached for both, but the above message says only residence. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 21:51, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

• The above discussion(s) support the removal of both wordings, and they're interchangeable since they're listed under the same parameter on the infobox documentstion. – DarkGlow • 22:19, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

I think I might have supported the residence/home parameters in the past, especially for those soaps who had location articles to link to (like Summer Bay), but I agree that it's in-universe and something that can be mentioned and sourced (if important) in the article. - JuneGloom07 Talk 22:10, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 13 June 2022

Since a consensus on the above discussion has been reached, would you be able to remove the "residence" and "home" parameters from this infobox? Thank you. – DarkGlow • 21:26, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

 Done. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 01:13, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Final VS Former

Since Neighbours is ending at the end of this month, I wanted to start this discussion. Some American soaps that have ended (e.g. One Life to Live, All My Children, Passions, Another World, Guiding Light, Port Charles, As the World Turns etc) sometimes use "Final" (e.g. "Final; regular" etc) rather than "Former" for characters that were part of the final episodes etc. This has been used inconsistently and is not in the infobox template guidance, so I have usually changed these to "Former". Since Neighbours is about to end and some editors may want to use "Final", I thought we could have the discussion now to avoid any edit wars and people getting sad. I do not mind "Final" particularly, but I think it can be an issue for these reasons:

1.) It can be quite hard to define what a "final" character is: is this just characters that appeared in the last episode? Or the last week? The last month? For recurring characters this is even harder to define. And for all of the characters that are returning for the finale, some may say that they do not count either (I think they do but some may disagree) as were not part of the regular cast etc.

2.) One Life to Live and All My Children were both revived in 2013 (although both ended that same year) on different channels etc, and hence it makes the idea of "Final" even harder. Does final count for when the series first ended or ended the 2nd time? (As the same cast members may be in the final episode for one version but not the other) If Neighbours gets revived this will be an issue...

3.) Some characters from defunct soaps have crossed over to other soap operas after the show has ended (e.g. Marley Love, Vicky Hudson, Nora Buchanan, Matt Musgrove etc) and this makes it harder to define (e.g. Nora was a final character in OLTL in both versions, but not in GH) and thus I think Former (or Past) would be easier. This could be an issue if some Neighbours characters appear in Home and Away or in a spinoff etc and people will debate on how to define it. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 09:13, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

I disagree with the use of final; technically the only "final" character(s) can be the one(s) who appear in the final scene. There's no use listing them as "Final; regular" so I agree that all instances should be changed to "former". – Meena • 09:23, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

This is an interesting discussion and good to have ahead of Neighbours ending. I dislike the use of "final" for a lot of reasons suggested, but since everyone would be "former", it becomes a bit pointless. Would it be beneficial to list characters as "Regular character"/"Recurring character" etc. Interested to hear some more views on this. Soaper1234 - talk 21:39, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't have a horse in this race, but it seems to me that "former, current or future" are completely irrelevant when a series has ended, as everyone will be "former". The cleanest way to handle this is to strip that terminology out of the infobox (when a show ends) and leave only "regular, recurring or guest".— TAnthony^Talk 16:45, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree with this. It's just restating the obvious since the show would have ended and, as TAnthony said, everyone is former. – Meena • 16:47, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

And I assume this would happen for all soaps that have ended too, right? I think we're gonna need someone who's confident with AWB and has time on their hands! – Meena • 16:51, 17 July 2022 (UTC)