Template talk:Infobox soap character 2

This template was considered for deletion on 18 April 2010. The result of the discussion was "keep for now".

This template was considered for deletion on 29 November 2010. The result of the discussion was "no consensus".

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Fictional charactersWikipedia:WikiProject Fictional charactersTemplate:WikiProject Fictional charactersfictional character articles

Soap Operas

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Soap Operas, an effort to build consistent guidelines for and improve articles about soap operas and telenovelas on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit WikiProject Soap Operas, where you can join the project and/or the discussion.Soap OperasWikipedia:WikiProject Soap OperasTemplate:WikiProject Soap Operassoap opera articles

Archives

Family parameters

Can we talk about which of the excessive family parameters should be removed? Personally I'd set the limit at 3 generations back max. I don't think there's any encyclopaedic value in great great aunts and the ilk. I might even go a bit further and say that while great grandparents are okay, great aunts and uncles might be pushing it. I'd also probably cut off at 'cousins' and lose all the once, twice, three times (a lady) removeds. As ever, open to other opinions though :) Frickative 22:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It should definitely be cut down. When you say three generations, do you mean great grandparents? Very few characters interact with their great grandparents. May I suggest adding an "other relatives" parameter for when there's something significant, like Phil Mitchell and Jamie Mitchell, or Nellie Ellis and Pauline Fowler (all of Nellie's relatives are second cousins, but not all of them important)? I also reckon we should remove relatives like grandparents if they were never in the show. Just keep the most important ones, basically. Any changes will take a lot of work, though, and Neighbours editors will have to do their own updates. anemoneprojectors talk 22:59, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point actually, great grandparents are probably unnecessary. I think "other relatives" is a really good idea, it's sort of a catch-all that does away with the need for a bunch of more extraneous parameters. And yeah, I agree on just keeping the most important ones. I'm always around to help get the boring work done :) Frickative 23:16, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I (as a Neighbours editor) think a "other relatives" parameter would be okay, we had it before in the old Soap Infoboxes and I don't mind going round and changing things over. - JuneGloom07 Talk? 23:26, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) So if we got rid of the parameters for any great relative (and greater), and any cousin who isn't a first cousin not removed, then we can assess each infobox after that. Good idea so far? anemoneprojectors talk 23:29, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anemone that sounds a good idea :) --5 albert square (talk) 23:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since it only affects EastEnders and Neighbours right now, and right now we're probably the four main editors of those soaps, shall I go ahead and remove those parameters as we are all in agreement? :) anemoneprojectors talk 23:42, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please let me do it, at least to top James William Branning from being added! anemoneprojectors talk 15:11, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Missed this before, I think there's enough consensus here for you to go ahead and do it :) Frickative 15:45, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Now we might need to clean up infoboxes to add "other relatives" if they're important. I did Nellie Ellis as an example. I guess removing the old fields from pages isn't a priority as they won't display anyway. anemoneprojectors talk 16:52, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Colours

I recently discovered this new template, it's brilliant by the way, and want to start using it in articles for Coronation Street. I'm just a bit bothered about the colouring, I like that with the soap character template, every soap can have it's own identity. Most notably EastEnders being blue, Corrie yellow and Emmerdale green. Anyone willing to change it? Ooh, Fruity (talk) 17:57, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done, just add |colour= or |color=. Blue is the default, so I don't need to change all the EastEnders and Neighbours pages. anemoneprojectors talk 21:01, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

classification param

Does anyone have any idea what the classification param is for. There no mention in the docs about its usage. -- WOSlinker (talk) 12:45, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's used to say if a character is past or present and if they are a regular, recurring or guest character. It's usually linked to an article/section such as List of EastEnders characters#Recurring characters or List of past EastEnders characters#Last appeared in 2010. Anemone Projectors 18:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've added it to the template docs. -- WOSlinker (talk) 21:02, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I didn't realise it had been missed off. I think it was added when I was taking a wikibreak. Anemone Projectors 21:42, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Middle names

Hey. For a long time now the addition of middle names, often without a source happens for these fictional characters. I don't think they should be in the first line because it's such in-universe information. One character as a good example is Mercedes Fisher which makes her first line read .. "Mercedes Maria Theresa Immaculata Fisher (née McQueen; previously Owen) is a fictional character", Half of the time there is no source that these are true and the spelling too. Could it be included in the Alias section. Thinking of it as "the nation know the character as this" and Alias, "Inuniverse/the characters, the character it's self knows it's full middle name is this" sort of thing. IMO it's pointless info, thats never referenced IRL, perhaps once refered to at a wedding on-screen... or the other thing, a NEW field be introduced to house these. (If you don't think they should be included what so ever anywhere, please say.)RAIN..the..ONE ^HOTLINE 13:39, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree, middle names shouldn't be in the lead. We should have a field in the infobox for the full name. Ooh, Fruity @ Ooh, Chatty 14:34, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When a character has been married four times, which name is their "full name"? Anemone Projectors 21:35, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Romances

This edit [1] (which seems to be fine - opening "Family" does indeed show "Romances Tanya Branning") and this previous edit [2] on the first user's talk page led me to investigate a bit further here. It appears that the template documentation doesn't say that the template accepts romances, but the template source does. Hence, I haven't reverted the first edit, since it is both accurate and fine according to this current template, even though undocumented. Thoughts anyone? Stephenb (Talk) 19:07, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's WikiProject EastEnders that doesn't want it in EastEnders articles. That's all. Anemone Projectors 19:16, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point me to that policy? If it has been previously discussed and agreed, it ought to be added to Wikipedia:WikiProject_EastEnders/Manual_of_style so that we can inform editors that add this otherwise valid field. Otherwise, it's more like WP:OWN... Stephenb (Talk) 19:19, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This has now been added to the MoS Stephenb (Talk) 19:44, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neighbours and Hollyoaks don't want it either... RAIN*the*ONE ^BAM 20:49, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

born/death

Infobox soap character + Infobox character don't use these fields. There was a big discussion in the past. I suggest that we remove them. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:30, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that we keep them, because characters in soaps have fixed dates of birth and death (other than when SORAS is applied, which is rare). –Anemone Projectors– 17:49, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with AP. I can understand those two templates not using dates, because in American soaps they change so often. It would seem silly having a birth date of 13 July 2002 with an image of a 25 year-old above it. But in the main this one is used by British and Australian soaps, who generally don't have that issue. It's also one of the main problems we faced before using this template, IPs inserting dates without an available field. I went round only a few months ago removing dates from the lead of several Corrie and Emmerdale articles. Ooh, Fruity @ Ooh, Chatty 19:44, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Romances and Cause of death?

It would seem that all the soap opera's using this infobox have opted out of using romances because it is trivial info and does not aid the general readers knowledge. I think that as EastEnders, Neighbours, Home and Away, Hollyoaks and Coronation Street do not use it, no one edits Emmerdale - it could be removed now. Another one I'd like discuss is Cause of death - what does that really do? These are fictional characters and it is never used in anycase.RaintheOne ^BAM 03:17, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Get rid of them! They are indeed useless. GSorby – Ping! 09:14, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I may be wrong, but I think Corrie still use the Romance field. I hate that, so get rid off it. Cause of death, I dont know but I feel that it could be usefull, but dont mind either way Mayhem Mario 09:43, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cause of death should definitely go—totally in-universe. Relationships is far from my favourite parameter, but it could be argued that a character's partners are generally more important to their storylines than nephews/nieces etc. On balance though, I think I'd still prefer to see it nixed. I think the best argument against it is just to imagine what Ken Barlow would look like if all his girlfriends were listed(!). Frickative 10:19, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Imagine Whitneys and Ians relatonships! If you havent seen, the spanish version of Whitney, it made me chuckle :) Mayhem Mario 10:33, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cause/Reason could also go, because it isn't used. When I've seen it in use in the other template it just states where the character moved to, or if they are dead. I guess home already fills in that blank. But, I think it is another one that is totally in-universe.RaintheOne ^BAM 14:23, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of removing the fields from the template altogether, I think the soaps that don't use them should just opt out of using them. For example, EE opted out of having the home field, while other soaps/articles still use it and it's still part of the template. Does that make sense, my brain is going a bit slow today? - JuneGloom Talk 14:30, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those who opt out - if an IP comes along can they add them still? Is there a way of cancelling it out for usage in each soap?RaintheOne ^BAM 14:40, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the soap has opted out and someone (not necessary an IP) adds the field to the character's infobox, then it won't show up. Just like EE and the home field. - JuneGloom Talk 15:10, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Well Emmerdale just opted out. What happens next? Neighbours and Home and Away - do you think they should opt out JG? Pretty sure Hollyoaks won't want them - but I'll ask them.RaintheOne ^BAM 15:14, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neighbours doesn't use those two fields anyway (can you imagine putting the romances field Paul's article?), so I guess they've opted out. I don't think H&A uses them either. - JuneGloom Talk 15:32, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Imagine Home and Away's Ruby. Do we have to edit the template or anything to make it official?RaintheOne ^BAM 15:38, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but I'd practice first in the sandbox or ask someone who knows what they're doing. AP did the EE ones, so you could wait until he appears tomorrow. - JuneGloom Talk 15:49, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, AP can do it.RaintheOne ^BAM 15:51, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't we just get rid of them instead of being all complicated? –Anemone Projectors– 13:27, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought there might be some shows/characters that use them. - JuneGloom Talk 13:29, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AP, fabulous idea. We should get rid of them. No hanging on needed here.RaintheOne ^BAM 13:53, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So that is Cause of Death out the window, can someone remove it from the template? Are we sure we want to remove Romances aswell then - there has been a bit of here and there over that one.RaintheOne ^BAM 05:05, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ALL GONE!!!!!!!!!! –Anemone Projectors– 14:48, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

step brothers and sisters?

I find it weird how there's stepfather, stepmother, stepsons and stepdaughters listed but not stepbrothers and sisters, so can this be added? It's within the actual immediate step family reach so I don't see any reason why not personally but I got told I had to discuss this matter so.. discuss? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Libby'smummy (talk • contribs) 23:59, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Classification

For defunct soaps, the classification should say for characters in the final episode, 'Final; regular'. I did that for Dale Smith and Callum Stone from The Bill as they were both in the final episode. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boushenheiser (talk • contribs) 15:01, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spin-off appearances

I removed the nowrap from this line as it was pushing the text of some infoboxes over to the right too much, and I don't think it should matter too much as the spin-offs line is the last line in that section. The other idea I had was to just call it "spin-offs" but I didn't think that made sense. –Anemone Projectors– 17:50, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't mind the use of "spin-offs" instead of "spin-off appearances". - JuneGloom Talk 19:56, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it could be taken to mean spin-offs of the character, rather than spin-offs the character appeared in. Maybe I'm overthinking. –Anemone Projectors– 09:05, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox needs to be replaced in many many cases

The standard infobox is Template:Infobox soap character. Template:Infobox soap character 2 should only be used for EastEnders characters. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:47, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see why this is a must have. We started to use Template:Infobox soap character 2 to all non-East Enders characters. This notice should remove immediately. — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 14:11, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One of the two infoboxes is useless anyway. We need to form a common tactic on the fields that will appear in the infobox. In the last discussion I participated, at least 3 years ago, EastEnders managed to exclude their characters from a uniform appearance. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:16, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, not really since General Hospital characters uses the standard infobox for example Robin Scorpio. — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 14:18, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I am confused of what you suggest or maybe I don't write it explicitly: I suggest that we keep Template:Infobox soap character 2 or not at all. In any case replace it for non-EastEnders characters. Certainly, not extend its use to more characters. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:21, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've tagged the two templates for a merger, so there can be a centralised discussion at the TfD page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:29, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I agree we keep only Template:Infobox soap character 2 for all soap characters. — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 14:30, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There was a huge discussion a while back at WP:Soaps, where we agreed on many changes to the original infobox, so that this box wouldn't be necessary at all.Caringtype1 (talk) 15:54, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This template is generally used in UK and Australian soaps, while the other is generally used in US soaps (the genre is actually treated very differently between the two). This template isn't limited to EastEnders, but at WikiProject EastEnders it was decided to disable the "home" field, so that's why EastEnders gets a mention in the template. It can be used for any show. A lot of people prefer this one to the other template. I remember a discussion a while ago, and some changes were made, but it didn't make this template redundant - it has many required fields that the other template excludes, probably because the other template is US centric. –Anemone Projectors– 17:06, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed the documentation wasn't updated and that's why you think it should only be used for EastEnders. Many years ago, every British and Australian soap had its own infobox template. They were all merged into this one. (The documentation for the other template is much better than for this one) –Anemone Projectors– 17:10, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also want to note that this template is used more than the other one. –Anemone Projectors– 17:13, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Changes were made to the original box, and it was decided that US soaps would use that one. This box probably does work a lot better for UK/Australian soaps. I see know problem with having two boxes for this reason.Caringtype1 (talk) 17:28, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually looking at the two, the only main difference between the two is birth and death dates. I think US soaps don't want them and UK/Aus soaps do, for reasons stated many times in the past. Also the family section is split by gender in this one and not in the other but that's not a huge issue. This template has a parameter for pet owners under family (see Willy (EastEnders) or Wellard) and also one for breed (see the same two pages). Also in family, here we have civil partners, half siblings and "other relatives", because sometimes there's an important connection between someone more distantly related, such as between Alfie Moon and Michael Moon (EastEnders) (they are second cousins, once removed, but there's a very clear connection between them (but we're careful to only add the most important relatives, and not all of them)). –Anemone Projectors– 17:42, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I beleive that US soaps look better with the Infobox soap character 2, it looks way more professional. Who says for birth and death dates that US soaps don't want them. We want them, but the issue is sometime there is no source to proove it. We started to uses this template because it look better. IMO, Infobox soap character 2 should be use for all soaps and I am not changing my mind. — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 17:48, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For example Dylan McAvoy or Robin Scorpio, which one looks better (question mark) Also, the second infobox has more detail information which what articles need. — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 17:51, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I completely disagree with that. I don't think it looks "more professional" at all, in fact, just the opposite. Birth/death dates shouldn't be used for so many reasons (no soucres, many characters are SORASed, fictional characters can't die). There was a lengthy discussion where it was decided to use a modified box1 for all US soaps, and that is what we should stay with.Caringtype1 (talk) 17:53, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional characters do die. I've seen it happen many times. They are just alive in some episodes and dead in other episodes. In UK soaps, we only add a date if it's referenced in the episode or on a programme's official website. Episodes are set on or close to the day they're broadcast. SORAS is very uncommon in the UK. Why do you think ibox2 is the opposite of "more professional"? Can you explain what you mean? The difference in appearance is a small one in spacing. Ibox2 uses {{infobox}}, which ibox(1) should really be using. –Anemone Projectors– 18:15, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you previous user. Caringtype1, if you look at Infobox soap character and 2, the second one looks way more better. If you were very intelligent, you will know the answer. The first looks terrible and looks like it came from a junk yard. You have a point with birth/death dates it shouldn't be used. I do not see why having two different infoboxes is a problem. US soaps can uses both infoboxes, I think it should be a decision on the main contributor of the article. If a editor prefers one infobox than the other, well that his or her's call. — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 18:19, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually fictional characters can't die, per Wp:Fiction. They're fictional, fiction lasts forever. Really looking "more professional", "way better" is not an actual argument. I also don't see a problem with having two info boxes, since US soaps are very different and have different needs than other soaps. Also box1 looking like "it came from a junkyard" is not an argument, it's your personal opinion. (And I happen to have same the opinion about this box, not that it matters)Caringtype1 (talk) 18:27, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me, when did I said ″it came from a junkyard″ was a argument. Yes, it is my personal opinion and you have yours. Therefore, we can agree to disagree. However, I think we still agree on having two differents boxes is needed, right. — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 18:50, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Personal opinions about how things should look do not matter here. Opinions that go along with facts and details that prove a point are what matters here. Regardless, we both agree that a merger is unnecessary.Caringtype1 (talk) 19:18, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What are the differences between the two these days?Rain the 1 20:19, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough to keep two separate templates. Only dates and a few other things. Dates can go (see below), the rest can be merged. Family members are separated by sex in one and not in the other, which is going to create the most work after a merge. –Anemone Projectors– 09:01, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've merged the two templates at Template:Infobox soap character 2/sandbox. This means no information is lost from any pages (other than birth and death dates, I deleted those). –Anemone Projectors– 08:42, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Like I noted here, The merge has made the infobox extensively excessive. And I don't agree with that, but I don't feel like debating it. This merge proposal should have been noted at the talk page of WP:SOAPS so that more editors would have known to weigh in on it. This discussion kept popping up on my WP:Watchlist, and I didn't look in on it. Now that I have, I am obviously displeased to know that the merge consists of all those fields. This template was better before the merge. Not to mention, that it'd been extensively worked out not that long ago. Flyer22 (talk) 16:30, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied to you at Template talk:Infobox soap character. –Anemone Projectors– 13:55, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Birth and death dates

Hello there. Has the general opinion on the inclusion of date of births and death altered at all? I really dislike them as the characters are not real. I think in most cases, this information is subject to change. Birth dates are changed to suit. The actual dates these occur are also a problem. You will have IP's adding original research - an episode is not always set on the date it airs. Just you try telling an unregistered visitor that - they do not listen to any explanation given. Even hidden notes are cast aside. Is it really worth the hassle and how encyclopedic is a made up date that rarely has any handle on development and notable storylines?Rain the 1 20:43, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree. The problem with "birth" and "death" dates is that they are arbitrary and even in soap operas the change to fit from time to time. An infobox of a fictional character should not look give in-universe information in much detail and should stick on real world facts like who created the character, who portrays it, etc. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:31, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking about this last night, and thinking we probably don't need them anyway. I know birth dates do rarely change, but if the age of a character is really that important, it should be mentioned in the text (Lola Pearce is one example - "The next day, on her 16th birthday...", also Jodie Gold - "The character is 19 years old on her arrival"). But I don't think we need the dates in the infobox. –Anemone Projectors– 08:55, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, just taking EastEnders as an example, the episodes are broadcast at totally different times in the other countries where they are shown, such as South Africa, where they're a few weeks out, so the dates are completely meaningless. Yeah, let's merge the templates without the dates :-) –Anemone Projectors– 08:57, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]