Template talk:Infobox superteam

Infobox superteam
Infobox superteam
Publication information
Publisher	Random
First appearance	Random
Created by	Random
In-story information
Base(s)	Random
Member(s)	Random

Usage

{{Infobox comics organization <!--Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics-->
| image = 
| caption = 
| publisher = Random
| debut = Random
| creators = Random
| status = Random
| base = Random
| current_members = Random
| former_members = Random
}}

Changes

I move that we make the changes we've talked about at Template talk:Superherobox and remove the distinction between "current" and "former" members, but instead designating in which issues characters are members. --Chris Griswold 19:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: We would have a list of current chcracters, followed by a link to a section in the article (for a small team) or a separate members article (for a big team) so that it will look nice and neat and yet also represent all of the available material. --Chris Griswold 20:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Remove --Chris Griswold 19:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove - so long as we indicate when they were members (Fanatstic Four 1-323, 340-??? for example) Darquis 05:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't think it needs to be removed. --Brian Boru is awesome 20:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I've changed my mind, I really like the way the Titan's box works right now, and I think that should be how we strive to do them; current members listed with links to their pages, then a link to a list of former members (if appropriate, otherwise that field should be optional) Darquis 04:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think you and I are in disagreement. I'm in total agreement with the Titans roster looking good; We can list the current characters and then link to the list article, or in the case of a smaller team, link within the article to the section that has information on the other members. We just won't say "former" members. --Chris Griswold 07:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So would we just designate it as "Members", list who is currently a member, and then include the appropriate link (as you described)? Darquis 06:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right. It would keep all the pertinent (in this case, current) info in the infobox, and it could then link to more information. This way, it's tidy but it also retains usefulness. --Chris Griswold 08:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - And put it back in the Superbox as well. --Basique 14:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove - as long as the the list of characters link is listed directly after. --Silver lode 21:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I vote remove provided there are (invisible) instructions in the teambox template to advise editors of this policy. Otherwise you'll have new editors constantly adding the left out characters to the various team boxes. I'm sure you had this in mind anyway Chris, but I thought I should mention it just in case. Hueysheridan 23:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Good idea. Yes, we will have to do this. --Chris Griswold 02:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Lose the designation of "current" and leave it as "Members" then say what issue of the comic book the character joined/was recruited. In addition, without looking at the roster articles, those should contain the issues the characters were members and why they're no longer members. --Newt ΨΦ 01:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CommentI think the "what issue they joined in" would be better left in the article itself. Aside from debate over when they officially joined the team (if such ever occurs), it seems like more information to cram into boxes that may already be too full. Darquis 03:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep —Lesfer ^(talk/@) 04:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 11:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove I would like to keep it, but I think about some teams like the Avengers or Justice League (extreme examples), where they've had a long list of members and ex-members. I can agree that it should be left in the article in a list of members, but if the section is too unweildy make something like List of members of the Avengers.--Toffile 13:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see a problem with it but if some lists are unwieldy then is there an option to leave it open to editor discretion to link through to an entry on the lineup (possibly with an extra field?). If there have been a lot of members then there will probably be separate entry so it sort of solves itself. For teams like The Authority it works well. (Emperor 14:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Discussion

I don't know about this one, yet. Maybe we could keep the way it is as we have "Lists of members" articles (e.g. Avengers, JLA, X-Men, etc). Besides, it seems to me that adding several names plus membership info in the STBs, would make it look pretty messy. The Avengers, for instance, have tons of members! —Lesfer ^(talk/@) 17:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True, but the Avengers has its own members page. This actually works really well with teams that have a members page. We can display the current members, list them as being members from NA #3 on, and include a link to the members page. --Chris Griswold 20:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But a members page already have this displaying-membership-info function, Chris. Adding this kind of info in a STB would be a mess. We could make it like displayed in Titans' STB. I'm closer to "keep" but still considering some points. I'll wait another day or two before voting. Cheers —Lesfer ^(talk/@) 17:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's only complicated if we try to include the entire roster of a large group like JLA; but, like I said, those teams have their own roster articles. --Chris Griswold 23:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, you're requesting that (to use the example already posted) in the Titans box, we include the issue that Kid Devil, Cyborg, or Wonder Girl joined the team? Darquis 00:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That was the suggestion of someone at Template talk:superherobox. It's completely up for discussion. That's the point of this. --Chris Griswold 00:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think I agree with Lesfer, the Titans box looks great (other than listing like 8 bases of operation, that's a bit unwieldy(unweildy?)). The problem is "Current" roster because of the way we've been looking at things, current isn't a descriptor we're supposed to use (which I disagree with, I think we should differentiate what events happened in books published in the 80's and what happened in last week's Civil War or whatever). Darquis 19:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So much for discussion. ChrisGriswold already did it. See the superteambox for more info. Brian Boru is awesome 15:54, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well it is reversible. If there is no consensus then you just can't go steaming ahead with it. (Emperor 17:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]

There didn't seem to be clear consensus according to the straw poll. And, though the discussion seemed to be lacking, but I've been noticing that Chris has been especially...err..."bold" as of late. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 18:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Homeworld

Can we get Homeworld and Species in this box as well? --Basique 11:22, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would it really be practical for most teams (many of the big superhero teams have members of several types of species and/or homeworlds). Dizzy D 11:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You might be right, there's usually a mix. --Basique 13:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only in things like Marvel/DC. In Manga/Anime team members are usually all from the same planet (admittedly, it's usually Earth).

perfectblue 10:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Membership proposal

I've been pondering retaining the current "membership" field for teams with essentially fixed membership (Fantastic Four, Gen13, Runaways) or with near-constant members (Prof. X and Cyclops in X-Men, Cyborg in Teen Titans) but adding the option to directly link to a header or article describing the team's membership history. How do people feel about this compromise? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I especially like leaving a field for a membership page. My only concern has to do with the former members field. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 05:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Colours

Can we have colours here? --Jamdav86 10:12, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's going to be a project color when I get around to adding it. It's been discussed at WT:CMC, where everyone agreed on a cornflower blue. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, comic book articles—not the whole project, but articles like 52, Civil War, etc.—have the Dark Horse blue. I know that was just a test, but we could leave it and chose another color for teams. -sort of an...indicator that the boxes are different, like the old color coding system, but realistically workable. I was thinking Dodger blue (#1E90FF). It's bright, but still reasonable. Wanna try it? ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 07:01, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. We're not coming up with a new color coding system. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:05, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Blue all the way! Make Mine Blue! Nuff' Blue. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 08:26, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fine; excellent. BTW, Chris, may I recommend downers? ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 08:05, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proper usage

Is it ok for this template to be used in an unintended way, such as for a user page? --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 07:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Images and userboxes are generally the only thing to worry about in the userspace, the latter being different because they don't see much/any play outside the userspace. A commonly used template being applied to what would seem to be a user's dream team? Yeah, whatever. Who cares? Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 08:00, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update

In line with the template discussions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/Archive 18#Changes to SHB?, as well as the guidelines at WP:CMC/EG, I am updating the superteambox template to eliminate reference to "previous" and "current" and to include a field for linking to a members article. The consensus may not have been reached here, but the discussion and consensus at WT:CMC encompassed all of the infobox templates, and now that I am an admin, I am making the changes, which will bring the superteambox in line not only with the WP:CMC consenus and guidelines but also the SHB. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 18:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I updated one third of the articles that use this template last night for the new change. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 18:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again I don't understand where the authority for this is. You link to various things as guidelines and/or discussion for this but I'm seeing nothing relevant to the Superteambox. The main discussion about changing this template is above and there was no clear consensus for action. (Emperor 19:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]

There was consensus to change these boxes at WT:CMC. WP:CMC does not differentiate between former and present when referring to made-up history. I am an administrator working for WP:CMC, and so I am doing the will of the project. The update will be complete tonight. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 22:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see no such "consensus" at any of those links. I see you saying you want to do it, but no actual discussion of it. And even on this page I see a poll on this very subject having a consensus to keep it the old way. You should offer real evidence or switch it back.164.107.218.14 04:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a mistake to refer to "current" in the context of comics, or any form of fiction, when referring to story points. All fictional works are eternally present, and it's well-established practice at WP:CMC to refer to comic story points in the eternal present. There's even a general fiction guideline, WP:WAF, that makes this clear. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]