Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Soap Operas/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Remove the "Cause" field

Why don't we discuss removing the pointless "Cause" field from that info box. It is used as an in universe field serving little point but clogging the info box. The actual cause - and I have said this before - is the production axing the character or the actor quitting the series. Currently there are many US soap opera articles filled with this lie. The character does not leave the series because they wanted to or they died - they were written out. Distinguish fact from fiction.Rain the 1 16:39, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Aren't a lot of the fields in-universe? I think the reason the character left (vs. the actor) is an informative summary point for the infobox of that character. How the actor left, if known, could be explained in a casting section of the article? Just my two cents. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 16:58, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Raintheone. I've always believed that the "Cause" column was cluttering, and because there are millions of different ways the causes can be written. Regardless, I agree that a discussion could take place about removing the "Cause" field. That way, there's no issue regarding last appearances. Creativity97 17:44, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay. Would death cause stay? Also just want to make sure I'm following, we've decided to use the last appearance as the last date the character was used, and just that date alone right? Not to include two dates when they've appeared alive then ghost, etc.? Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 17:54, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Don't change anything yet. We need more opinions. Creativity97 20:07, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

But if we remove the cause/reason when no one will know the reason why the last aired, and without the cause of death, then if the character died then no one would know why the died. I say we should keep them. Jester66 (talk) 20:23, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I do think we need an extra opinion or two on the status of the cause field. I've split the section from the previous discussion. I really this it would go a long way in stabalising the articles. Less time spent on deciding on the correct term, fending off vandals who misuse the field ... and more time improving the articles.Rain the 1 00:01, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I think the main problem is it's being used for too many different things. Some have the cause/reason of a "deceased" characters re-appearance, some have the reason the character left the story, some have the cause of death (in which case, why have cause of death field). Rain also suggested having it be the reason the actor left, which personally I'd rather have described in a casting section. I'm warming up to the idea of removing it... I think using it as the reason for a character's re-appearance (hallucination, ghost, etc) just opens up the door for confusion and edit wars on the difference between flashbacks, etc. I think the cause of death field is a significant summary point, but having the other "cause" field is confusing. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 01:11, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Help with improving the All My Children and One Life to Live character pages

Since several AMC and OLTL character profiles have been deleted, and Y&R and Days have the List of Y&R characters from the 70s to 2010s, I am trying to make some for both AMC and OLTL I have started with AMC List of All My Children characters (1970s), but I'm going to need some help with this. Jester66 (talk) 00:14, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I cleaned up List_of_One_Life_to_Live_characters the other day, and saw the redirects are a little inconsistent, a lot of characters without their own page redirect to storyline section breaks of other characters, some go to family pages, some to the misc character page. Let me know if there's anything specific you'd like me to help with. I don't know the storylines of OLTL and AMC but am happy to help clean up the pages. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 03:13, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking we do the AMC and OLTL pages like how the Y&R ones are constructed. I am trying to talk to Creativity97 or someone who has knowledge of AMC and OLTL since they first started in 1970 and 1968.. Jester66 (talk) 05:32, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

GH is set up with decade pages too and it seems to work well. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 06:00, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I know if I'd known about this last year then they would've been many articles that would've been recovered, instead of deleted. Jester66 (talk) 07:16, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely. I've been thinking the OLTL minor character sections should be organized by decade. FrickFrack 20:26, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, and it doesn't have to be minor characters there are some more important, but not really important characters that deserve to be there, since a lot of characters' links are redirected to the either the show page or the cast page. Jester66 (talk) 20:33, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Infobox family qualifiers

I'd like to see the consensus on which qualifiers are to be used or not. I've seen different uses, and would like to clean up the parameter descriptions as well as help with the infobox updating.

1. Adoptive, for parents/children. I think this is a relevant qualifier. Soap infobox2 currently has these as individual parameters.
2. Adoptive, for other relatives; siblings/aunts/uncles/cousins/nieces/nephews/etc. It could remove clutter to not mention this in these parameters.
3. Biological. If "adoptive" is used, I think biological is unnecessary/redundant/assumed. The relationship parameters currently list biological as an acceptable "clarification of unusual situation" and I'd like to delete that comment.
4. Half-relative. The relationship parameters currently list this as an acceptable "clarification of unusual situation". I'd like to delete that comment. In the soap world it's more common to be a "half" relative than a "full" one.
5. Step. Currently not mentioned in the parameters. I think it is relevant in most cases, and can be used in parenthesis after the listed relative, or added as separate parameters such as soap infobox2.

In summary, my opinion is the family parameters in infobox2 could replace those in infobox 1, separate from "half" being replaced with "step." Please voice your opinions. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 19:21, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I think Infobox 2 is sloppy and unclean. I prefer the first box. Half-siblings, etc. are listed under siblings, and "adoptive" is listed otherwise. As for the half-relative, that's just dumb. All in-laws, step-children are listed under "Relatives". It's cleaner.

Just to clarify my question - whether or not we split up the parameters like box2, I'm wondering what consensus is of these qualifiers being used at all (so in box1, being used in parenthesis as they currently are). My opinion is adoptive - yes, biological - no (as long as adoptive is used), anything "half" - no, "step" - yes. This does seem to be what most people do, but wanted to get opinons before changing the parameter descriptions that currently advocate "biological" and "half" qualifiers. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 18:00, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Adding future characters to character list.

I've tried it before, and I think it works pretty well. Is it possible that users can start adding future characters to character lists. It is done very well for U. K. soaps and it allows users to add to information as it comes and as it changes, instead of waiting until after the character has debuted to start articles or new sections in a character list for new characters.--Nk3play2 ^{my buzz} 02:13, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I was under the impression it was a WP:CRYSTAL issue, since they are fictional you have to wait until they appear. But if UK soaps are doing it maybe they can shed some better light on it... Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 07:04, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Removal of "Romances" on template

Hi all. I was just thinking, "romances" honestly are pointless and I don't see why they have to be included on every single U.S. soap character article. This is a big suggestion but what do others think about using Template:Infobox soap character 2 instead? It seems more suitable and will stop people from romance clutter. Or just remove romances from the original template. I mean, there is no need to have an edit war over whether a kiss was a romance or something simply stupid like that. Please, share your thoughts! Arre 06:23, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

We never had a problem with the "romances" portion before, this is silly. Listing the romances showed whoever the character was with romantically, dated, kissed and so forth. I say keep it. Jester66 (talk) 06:37, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

My logic is that it is extra clutter and is unneeded. The only thing silly is that a person a character has kissed deserves a place of notability in their character info-box, IMO. But, I respect your POV I just don't see it that way. And yes, there have been minor issues in the past with this. Arre 07:10, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I do think that some articles/editors go a little overboard with the romances... but I also think there are some romances that are just as important than if they had gotten married. Not sure how to clarify "important" enough to stop edit wars, but in my opinion kisses/one-sided crushes, etc could definitely go and just be mentioned in the plot. In terms of important ones, one example is Robin Scorpio's relationship with Stone Cates. I will take a closer look at the infobox2... from a quick look there are both things I think would work well and not for US soaps. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 13:24, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I think it should be removed, some characters go through loads of romances but they aren't all important enough to be mentioned. It is unnecessary clutter and makes the infobox look messy. If a romance is important enough for the character and it garnered out of universe info then it should be added to the lead. D4nnyw14 (talk) 20:40, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Or the development section. ;) If it's decided that the romances field is to be used in an article, then I think there should be a discussion on what exactly makes a romance. Personally I don't think one kiss, a bit of flirting or a one-night stand should be mentioned in the ibox (I've seen all of those added at one time or another). - JuneGloom Talk 20:52, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Keep IT - Sorry, but I think the romances section is needed because not every character was married all of their partners, but some of those partners had major effects on the character, like the above mentioned, Robin Scorpio and Stone Cates; Stone was Robin's first love and their relationship defined Robin's character as a whole. Because some of these romances have had such profound effects the characters, I think it is greatly needed. And using Template:Infobox soap character 2 as a guideline doesn't make sense because that infobox has several parameters that I think are needed in this infobox, i. e. "Family,", and dates of births and deaths. Keep romances--Nk3play2 ^{my buzz} 21:59, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

As JuneGloom07 pointed out - if it were to stay on as a field then it would need formalising. As Jester openly supports a generic kiss being added to the infobox. This type of attitude is not fitting with Wikipedia. These are what I like to call fansite values. I think it should be removed. It is an overused field and anything is added. You can view this as a cop out if you like, but removing it would make articles more stable. Less edit wars for anon editors who sneak this data in ten a penny. Another phrase I have often used is "clutter" and the romance field can go along way in defining that.Rain the 1 22:10, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I do believe that some profiles are very over cluttered with romances and disputes about whether or not a kiss was a romance has become an issue, but Template:Infobox soap character 2 does not include the character's spouses and I think that's crucial for a character's profile. And I agree with JuneGloom07; should the romance field be kept there should be a discussion about what constitutes a romance. The info-boxes have become way overcrowded and a legitimate discussion should take place to find a way to fix this. Just removing things won't help everything, so eventually we need to reach a consensus. Creativity97 22:15, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Just to point out that the infobox two does have an equal to the spouse field - either use "husband" or "wife" and it works the same.Rain the 1 23:07, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

As JuneGlune said it, notable romances can be built upon in a development section. Also, kisses, one-night stands, or things like that should definitely not be added. Just because they kissed doesn't mean they have a relationship. Template Info-box 2 like Rt1 pointed out does include spouses. Because once you're married to someone they are apart of your family. I agree that some romances are notable enough, but they should be noted in the lead/development. Relationships --> Family. Relationships don't just mean family/romantic, they mean friends and stuff like that too which might be puzzling to readers, which is why Family seems more suitable and is more encyclopedic, IMO. Like on Sharon Newman's article people included Matt Clark as a romance; I wouldn't considering they only went on a few dates and he raped her twice. Arre 00:47, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I think the short-term, non-notable relationships shouldn't be mentioned, especially things like kisses, crushes, etc, for all the reasons you guys have mentioned. I feel like marriage isn't really the definition of making a relationship notable though... there are some relationships just as important or more where they just haven't gotten married, and some marriages that last a day and aren't very notable at all. I would say "long-term relationship" could be a way of defining what to include in the infobox, but still could be prone to edit wars... Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 02:42, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes but marriage legally makes them related to that character. If this was "Relationships" in the true sense of the word it would include "Friends" etc, and it just doesn't make sense. I think family is better. Or maybe add "Partner" or something instead of relationships. Not sure. But this is definitely an issue. Notable relationships can be mentioned in the lead, development and storyline. Arre 04:44, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it should be removed, but it needs to be more concise. A kiss is not a romance! That's a kiss. Romance should be someone they've been involved with for a certain length of time. Not someone they simply kissed and never had anything romantic with. Because if it's about a kiss, everyone on every soap would be romantically linked. I think marriages should be included. Or have a section that says Current marriage and Previous marriages, etc. A friends section is kind of useless in my opinion! livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 17:22, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree with LLM. Maybe removing the section was too drastic but there must be changes. On another note, I think "Spouse(s)" should be changed to "Spouse". "Spouse(s)" doesn't apply because it means that at that moment they have multiple spouses. It should just be spouse. Does anyone get this? Also, I was joking about the friend section, I was using it as an example about how 'family' is better than 'relationships'. Relationships could be anything. Arre 01:03, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Would using "current marriages" and "previous marriages" bring up similar issues to when "current" and "former" are used for occupations/violate WP:TENSE? Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. If we choose to update the parameter description, here is what the soap parameters currently say: "relations by marriage and other potentially temporary connections need only be noted if the relationship holds some notable significance for the characters in question." The TV infobox uses the language "Any significant relationships that are essential to understanding the character." I think the soap infobox might benefit from taking that paragraph and putting the instructions directly into the rows of the parameters they explain. (I also think there are some instructions there that are outdated... but don't want to veer off topic). If we wanted to add to the romance parameter description, maybe we could reference the MoS on Infoboxes which states trivial details should be avoided and to "avoid delving into minutiae, such as information only mentioned in supplementary backstory". WP:PLOT/what WP is not is another point but maybe too obvious to be helpful. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 04:12, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Marriages are not the issue here.. "spouse(s)" are fine. I was just suggesting we change it to husband/wife. It implies they have multiple at a time when it says (spouse(s)). Yes, the parameter description needs to updated. However, it won't stop people from going against it. U know?Arre 02:08, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I do think it helps to summarize consensus points there though, at least in my experience it's easier to deal with reverts etc when there is a guideline to reference, instead of searching talk page archives. Also I think there are some editors that will reference the guidelines when trying to edit correctly. Oooooor just me, ha, but it can't hurt. I'll work on it a little, feel free to correct anything I add. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 04:14, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

The romances should stay with the parameter being updated. On a different note, I am suggesting that we add "Wife" and "Husband" to the info-box instead of "Spouse(s)", do you agree with me when it implies they have more than one spouse at the time? Or maybe just change it to simply "spouse". That's fine, I trust you fully Kelly. Arre 08:25, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

So - what has been decided from this discussion?Rain the 1 23:57, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I myself am not really sure, Lol. I personally still think we should use the Info-box 2. I tested it out with a new US soap character article I made and I think it looks really good; avoids clutter and stuff like that. But several don't think we should use it. Arre 00:17, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I added some clarification points/links to the relationship parameters, if that is at all helpful. It seems there is opposition to removing romances all together/completely switching to box2 but most feel the info needs to be cut down significantly. Also, I was searching talk page archives while adding info to the parameter descriptions and this has definitely come up before, with editors asking to cut down on that info. A couple I just pulled up again for example: here and here. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 00:35, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support removal of Romances field. There are so many unnecessary fields in the template. It needs a revamp, desperately. Statυs (talk) 09:24, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
• Just incase there was any doubt - I Support the removal of the Romance field.Rain the 1 00:27, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Creator; head writer vs. sourced content

I've moved this to a separate section which I should have done to begin with, since it's regarding content of a parameter, not whether or not to include it. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 05:40, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

There has already been consensus to include both introducer and creator parameters. There has been some opposition on what the creator parameter should use. Please comment.

• I agree with Rain's comments in the above sections that explain how the head writer is not always the one to create the character. I believe this field should be left blank unless there is sourced content stating who specifically created the character. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 13:53, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
• I don't understand what agreement this is trying to come up with, however, I too agree with Raintheone's comments. People just assume the head writer at the time created the character which is wrong. I agree with you that it should be blank unless a source is provided about the creator. Arre 15:56, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
• The head writer is almost always the creator. Even if they didn't create the character, they gave the okay, and supervised the creation of the character. Besides, when can we really find sources for these types of things? It's best to leave it as head writer, or if we find a source saying someone else created the character, then add that.Caringtype1 (talk) 16:02, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
• I agree with Caringtype1; the HW (Head-writer) usually oversees the creation of any new character while the EP (Executive producer) gives the "OK" for said character to start being used in the scripts.--Nk3play2 ^{my buzz} 17:04, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
• I agree with both Caringtype1 and Nk3play2, the head writer or head writers give the okay for the creation and it's the EP's job to introduce it on-screen. Jester66 (talk) 20:11, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
• But you can never be certain that and assume that the HW created the character. Wikipedia is for accurate information not just assuming something because it "usually" happens. "Introduced by" is for the HW. We should just stick to that. If there is a source which tells us who created the character, than by all means include it. But that's why we should include both of these fields. Arre 10:07, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
• It's the head writer's job to give the character's creation the OK to be created. That's how HW works, I don't see what the problem is, Caringtype1, Nk3play2 and myself sure don't on keeping it the way it's always been, but with including the credit of the EP. Jester66 (talk) 21:35, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
• It's my belief that those who believe the opposite viewpoint have not commented yet, or maybe choose not to as they have already explained in the above sections. I've requested Rain to show me the specific example mentioned above. This seems like something that can be proved by research rather than opinion. I agree with Arre and Rain, if you're listing who thinks what. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 21:41, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
• I'm sorry, but I'm not standing for "assuming" or writing was usually happens. That is why we have both fields and I am completely unsure why this discussion is happening. Arre 03:55, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
• As requested. You have Toadfish Rebecchi who was created by a writer name Elizabeth Packett - that is in the infobox but in the development section there is a source provided. With Becca Hayton the show's youngest ever writer Kaddy Benyon created her. That isn't mentioned in the article at present but a source is provided still. An EastEnders story producer Dominic Treadwell-Collins created Roxy Mitchell and Ronnie Mitchell. I think the prescient that the head writer created the character needs to be retired. You could assume head writer but a little research could state otherwise.Rain the 1 10:54, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
• Thanks for providing that great example Rain. ^.^ Great examples of people that aren't the head-writer who created the characters. Writing 'created by [head writer and the time]' is misleading. Arre 11:24, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
• Well British soap operas aren't the same as American soap operas, two completely different styles. All right then, do whatever you want. Good luck trying to get ALL the sources and the edit wars that will ensue. I will try to do my part, but now I'm not sure anymore. Jester66 (talk) 20:38, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
• Jester, soap operas are soap operas. They all have head-writers and other writers. We're not saying we're trying to find a source for who created every character, if you have been following the discussion. We just mean, we will use 'Introduced by' in the meantime and only use 'Created by' if we know for sure who created the character. How will edit wards ensue over this? Arre 01:27, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
• Are we really going to look for sources for who created every single character? There can't be more than a handful of reliable sources for that sort of thing. And there's a good reason for that. Most of the times, the head writer created, and helped create the character. If we do happen to find a source, we'll include it. But odds are, the head writer is the creator, so why can't we just say that?Caringtype1 (talk) 19:56, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I think to Arre's point above, "odds are" and "most likely" are not encylopedic. There's no need to included the information unless sourced, like any information on wikipedia. The new "introduced by" field is easier to fill out as it is the EP at the time. That can be used for all characters, supplemented by "created by" when it is known and sourced. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 20:01, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Template_talk:Infobox_soap_character#Proposed_changes

Via the above link to the template talk page, this: User:Kelly_Marie_0812/Template:Infobox_soap_character is what I propose we change to infobox1. I believe it incorporates the consensus of the above discussions. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 06:23, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

If anyone has opposition or opinions on the minor adjustments not listed in the lengthy discussion above, please join the discussion at Template_talk:Infobox_soap_character#Proposed_changes. They include: addition of "Classification" and "Family" parameters from box2. Removal of "Nicknames", "Title" and "Gender" to match box2, and while briefly discussed here, adding "character" after the series name in the title bar. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 18:20, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Info-box

I really like this info-box created by Kelly Marie 0812. It's perfect other than the (s) at the end of siblings, and it should be "Family" instead of "Relationships". But I think people should consider using it. It should also eliminate gender. Arre 05:57, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure... It's a start, but could use some work. It should definitely say "Relationships", "Family" is in-universe, trivia, and not broad enough. I also think "Adoptive" and Step agents are a little unnecessary. But it's definitely something to consider.Caringtype1 (talk) 17:32, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I am really in favor of gender separation for relatives, but yes, it is a start. I've also been working my own version for quite some time now, I will post the link for it later.--Nk3play2 ^{my buzz} 17:42, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, it being my sandbox it obv favors my opinions on those parameters still in question, but I'm happy to change it to whatever consensus is and let an admin use it to update/write over box1. I've also been working on the accompanying text/guidelines on the same page. How do we go about finishing up this discussion? Some parameters seem decided but other still mixed. :/ Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 01:13, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I also love but now there are edit conflicts considering the "Introduce by" and "Created by" for several profiles, while with others, people are using the "created by" for the HW of the show when the character was created and "introduced by" for the executive producer at the time, the character was created, which I think that's how those two should go. Jester66 (talk) 01:30, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Nk3play2, I like the separation of sexes (brother,sister,parents) because it is organized, but most don't see it that way. Jester, See a comment from User:Raintheone above. The head writer/executive producer most likely (is) the introducer, but nobody knows who exactly created the character. Caringtype1, how is "Family" trivia? That doesn't make sense. Kelly, the only things I feel that need to be change (IMO) are removing "()" from sibling(s), just simply write "siblings". And split "Spouse(s)" into two seperate fields: Husband, wife. Arre 01:36, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Well if the character is seen for the first time, the person who HW the show created the character, since it was the HW's plan in their bible for that character, and it was the EP's job to introduce the character on the canvas onscreen. It's not that much of a problem. Jester66 (talk) 01:41, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Once consensus is reached, but it still seems pretty split on the male/female separation and I do feel pretty strongly against it. Can we keep individual parameter discussions up in the subheaders above? Maybe "close" them individually as consensus is reached? Also, if we manually archive some of the discussions at the top of the page will it mess with the bot that auto archives? Thought that may make things easier to see here. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 01:45, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

The head-writer at the time. Isn't always the creator. Idk if you know but there are several other writers who create characters too. This is why 'Introduced by' is better than 'Created by'. Arre 01:59, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but it's the head writer who comes up with the overall story arc. Like I stated above. Jester66 (talk) 03:26, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Writing the overall arc is different than creating a specific character. Whether or not the created parameter includes the head writer by default or requires sourcing, am I correct to assume you agree to include both creator and introducer parameters? I just want to make sure I've correctly assumed the consensus(es? is consensuses a word? ha) above. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 03:42, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I already stated why. Jester66 (talk) 03:57, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Like Kelly said..writing the arc/creating character isn't all done by 1 person (HW). Anyway, what I was aiming to talk about here is not talking about it and maybe taking action. I really think this sandbox's template is perfect. With those few adjustments. Arre 04:18, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

But the overall idea is done by the HW and he tells the breakdown, associate head writers and etc. to write it. Writing the character isn't just the HW, but the overall creation of the character is, and it's up to the EP to introduce the character onscreen. I don't see what the problem is to just leave it as it is. Jester66 (talk) 05:21, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree with trying to wrap this up. I'm just not sure romances nor the family gender stuff has really come to any conclusion. :/ Re:siblings I fixed that to remove parenthesis, and Re: family vs. relationships I think that if romances are kept, we'll have to keep it relationships, if not , I don't see how it's any encyclopedic difference from "relationships," and am neutral on one vs. the other. If romances are taken out, calling it family could strengthen the point of not including trivial relationships. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 04:26, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Jester, just because the HW overlooks everything, doesn't mean they created the character. I am totally against 'romances' personally. "Family" seems to make more sense. Arre 09:45, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree Arre on romances but think we need to come to consensus in the above section on it. Do you know any editors that haven't weighed in that could help add more comments? I'll add a section for family/relationships. Jester, I think the problem with keeping creator the way it is, is that it's not true/correct in all cases. Rain's comments in the above sections explain it, but there is a team of writers and sometimes ones other than the head writer are asked to create a character. Rain mentioned a specific example where two writers were asked to create characters and the EP chose the one they liked best. Or, for example when the writers' strike was going on, there could have been characters created by who knows who on the remaining writing team. I will add a section above for this too - let's please keep the parameter discussions up there and this discussion for how to wrap this up and implement the changes. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 13:45, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Kelly can you have a look at this? It's what IMO should be used. Arre

*I personally don't really understand "appeared" and "only". Assuming they are for characters who only appeared in certain episodes? In the US soap world I can't think of many/any characters who appear so little that would warrant an entry on a page that includes infoboxes. Do you have any examples?

*I also don't think "owner" is needed; again I can't think of any animals we have entries for and wouldn't want to encourage that.

*Your box has a death field, which I felt we reached consensus not to include? If you don't think so let's unclose that discussion above and iron it out.

*I think the box is accidentally missing stepchildren.

*Did you leave out species and gender on purpose? I'd be okay with dropping those, they are parameters there for the minority of characters not majority. The only entry I've used species is Casey the Alien (which I don't feel would be hindered whatsoever by not having that in the infobox) and I believe I read on a talk page somewhere it was added for some Passions characters. Gender should only be used when it's not obvious from photo or name, so unless we feel there are a lot of those cases... I'm also okay with keeping these two if you left them off by accident.

*The last field I see different is removal of "other relatives" which I agree would end some edit wars of unnecessary detail, however I know I've used the field before... I will take a look at some articles to see. I think the main time I feel characters warrant being there are great grandparents who have had notable interaction with the character. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 22:32, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

oops, i forgot to move those stupid fields, Lol. "Relatives" is completely unneeded IMO and just creates so many edit wards. Arre 01:41, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

talk a look now. I based this template off of Info-box 2, just because that one seems to come together better a bit more. Arre 01:47, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I like it other than "death" should be deleted (or we should reopen that discussion above) and "color" should go to avoid confusion. I based my sandbox off box1 mostly because I could understand its code better than box2's. I'm going to delete species, gender and relatives from mine to match. I think the only contentious one is relatives, I'll add it above. I'm beginning to see consensus leaning towards no romances and no male/female family separation - do we need more opinons before concluding? Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 03:32, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Just ignore them (death/color) I'll remove them later ha. Box 2 seems better and easier. So, is there going to be an end to all of this?:S Lol Arre 05:21, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

blah i hope so. Do you want to just use mine since it's the same and the code is all set in it? We will need someone to unprotect the page to edit it... Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 05:34, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Nvm I just saw the edit protected template. Do you think it's okay to go ahead and request the change? Seems most everything has reached at least rough consensus... I've updated my sandbox page to just the infobox code to replace the other. (Doc page info has been moved to this sandbox). Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 06:08, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

We need more opinions. People have agreed to separate things, but as a whole we're not there yet. You need to make a few adjustments like rm "(s)" on spouse, sep Step/Children. This is a small thing, but the info-box should read "[Insert Soap Here] character" like on the info-box 2. Could you add it? I would change these things myself but I'm not sure if you're okay with me editing your sbox. Lol. Those are just small things hope u change:) Arre 10:04, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I thought step/children were two words as well but when I looked up stepfamily, looks like they are one. The rest is all set - but take a look at the few test examples I added of what it looks like with a character on more than one show. I think adding commas and "and" will be necessary. Can you think of any others that could comment and help us wrap this up? Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 15:48, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I am very against using "[Insert Soap here] character". We can tell by the first line, and by the entire article that it is about a character. Why do we have to jam it in there, where it is clunky and doesn't belong. Putting the name of the soap(s), is perfectly fine, clear, and clean.Caringtype1 (talk) 18:48, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I am neutral at this point on using it or not. I understand it may be assumed and therefore not needed, but I'm assuming box2 uses it for clarity and making the explicit distinction between fact and fiction. At this point I am just exhausted from discussing every minute detail and frustrated we cannot come to a conclusion. I think we need to start compromising. I also think we need to look at the bigger picture here, it is just the infobox, information can be explained else where in the article. The UK articles that use box2 are much more stable and have a significant amount of GAs. I think we've done a nice job finding a middle ground that works for box1 and think we need to call it a day and move forward. It's not going to be perfect. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 21:16, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I think doing something with the Ibox in your sandbox would be the best move. It incorporates parts of both info-boxes. Arre 01:41, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Caringtype1, "character" detracts nothing, it just enforces the fictional world of soaps and it's good to add it. It's just a simple word. I do respect your opinion, but let's not prolong this which little things here and there which don't matter. Arre 03:56, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

"Character" adds nothing but clutter. There is no reason to include it, as the name of the soap does the trick and is cleaner.Caringtype1 (talk) 05:39, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

"Character" distinguishes the person as fictitious rather than a real person associated with the series. I agree with Arre that a minute detail should not hold this up. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 05:57, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Caringtype1, 9 simple words in a template doesn't add clutter. It's what is added to the template what adds clutter. Like Kelly said! Yes, please don't hold this thing up even more because of a 9-letter word. Thanks. Arre 07:32, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Infobox soap character 2 again

Seeing that this infobox has a "date of birth" field, I am most certainly opposed to it for the reasons I and others stated opposition to it in the birth/date sections higher up on this talk page. Sparrowhawk8 has been going around adding this infobox to soap opera articles; I have reverted this user on a few and plan to revert him or her on others as well. I directed the user to this talk page, pointing out that there is no WP:CONSENSUS for this infobox and that a big discussion is currently going on about it. One reason that some are favoring this infobox is no doubt to reinstate the age field that was abolished three years ago. It should stay abolished, and most comments here are indeed against it. Flyer22 (talk) 11:23, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Flyer. I agree that the consensus has certainly been against using box2 as-is. I noticed this user as well, but was discouraged to try to stop it after my attempts with Evilhero12 didn't get anywhere, who also was implementing it on many articles. I've requested the changes we've been discussing here to be made to the protected infobox soap character (1) template, I really believe they are a good compromise between the two templates and once someone is able to make them, using box1 will hopefully work well for most editors. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 15:20, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I feel I have to defend myself as this is being portrayed as my doing. It was not my idea or initiative to start this, but I was of the understanding that we were transitioning to a new style of info boxes, so I was simply trying to help the transition with my edits. I happen to like the old info box 1 better myself. But since I now know that we are not transitioning, I will stop my edits. Sparrowhawk8 (talk) 19:59, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry Sparrow if it came off that way. It was the other user I asked to please hold off and they wouldn't respond to me. I was hoping the changes would be made to the template sooner and was holding off, waiting for that, before getting into any edit wars, but at this point I've reverted them because I think it is confusing editors (just like you've described). Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 20:06, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Sparrow, neither of us were stating that you initiated this; you aren't even very active on Wikipedia, looking at your contributions, and Kelly even seemed to be stating that she saw Evilhero12 implementing the infoboxes before you.

Kelly, I'll look over your infobox proposal and comment on it soon. On a side note, this IP seems to be cleaning up things in a way. Flyer22 (talk) 19:16, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm mixed on that IP's contributions but definitely agree they are in good faith. A few things they are removing should be discussed here, i.e. character's appearances on different series, but most edits seem productive. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 19:37, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Info-box image concerns

Hey all. I would just like to get someone's opinion on this. Often, pictures of actors from photoshoots are used in a character's info-box. Considering it should be '[Actor] as [Character]', this equates falsified information. Sometimes, the photo wasn't even used in an article regarding the soap/character! Even if it is from a photoshoot (e.g. Sam McCall), it's not her as the character. The actor is being used as promotion for the show. This isn't them as their character. I would just like to suggest to sticking to pictures of the actor on-set as the character (e.g.: Sharon Newman, Poppy Meadow) or screen-captures (e.g. Avery Bailey Clark). Unfortunately, I have attempted on several occasions to replace fancy high-quality images of actors from photo-shoots (which doesn't depict 'the character') with reasonably good quality (not too good quality; images of high quality CLAIM to have low resolution 'so as not to violate copyright laws') but it is always reverted. Please share your opinion about what constitutes the actor as the character. Arre 06:17, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree that when good screenshots, etc you are describing are available, they should take preference. But I do think photoshoots by the network should still be allowed, I think a case can be made for them being "in character" during a photoshoot specifically for the series. I'd say a high quality phootshoot would be used over a low quality/bad screenshot, but as long as the screenshot is decent quality and better depicting the character, it should be used instead. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 07:19, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

An example of what i personally think should be used are stills like Avery Bailey Clark's. It's not bad quality, nor is it high quality. My only concern about HQ images is that according to WP:NFCC we should use as little copyright as we can. They don't need high-quality images of the actors. Also about images from the official website...I'm still on edge about that, but considered they are often used in a profile for the character on its website, it's okay. Unless it's from the official website and used as identification of the character not actor (like Casting news), I'd object to those promo shoots. Pictures from places (SoapNet is a good source for these) which show the actor as the character on set and/or promotional stills/screenshots should be used. Arre 14:14, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

By "high quality" I just meant a very "good" photo, i.e. not blurry, clearly shows the character well, etc. Any promo shot/any photo should be cropped and file reduced before uploading to comply with NFCC. I don't think Avery's is bad quality. I just meant I don't think a very poor quality screenshot should be used instead of a better photoshoot photo, just for the sake of having a screenshot, and I wouldn't want photos removed completely and not replaced if screenshots couldn't be found. But I agree that if a "good" screenshot is available it should be chosen over a promo shot, maybe we mention in the guidelines that stillframes are preferred when available or something similar. I'm not sure about other network sites, but Sam McCall's is definitely of her in character and the photo used on the character bio section of the ABC site. I think Soapnet photos are good too - I have had trouble recently getting the photos to show on their gallery pages though :( Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 16:37, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Sometimes you have to be bold. If you are reverted when following policy - revert them, give an explanation and if they refuse to listen just alert an admin. If they want a fancy photograph rather than meet requirements at NFCC etc - then they are creating violations. It is just seen as a clear case of 'following the rules Vs not following the rules'.Rain the 1 21:16, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

True; but some users are extremely persistent. It's also hard considering how many their are. I understand Kelly, and I agree. I haven't even changed anything yet. People will begin to revert. Promotional photo-shoot fancy images are often non-verifiable and used to show the actor. Stills/screen-shots are more verifiable because they are from the episodes. Just try google images to get through SoapNet's images; I too have had trouble with that. Just type in 'Whatever sn soapnet' a wide variety of things will pop up from SoapNet. About, Sam, thanks for clarifying that her image is used. However, her image is of high quality which violates NFCC guidelines. It should be reduced and cropped, we don't need to see her legs and that chair, Lol. Arre 03:24, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Haha, yeah. I can scale it down. I'll look around for a good screenshot of her first though, ABC has a bunch. That whole chair series was used for their "who's who" section on GH page, probably reused for other reasons too though. What article are you having trouble with uploading a screenshot? Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 04:32, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Parameter changes to infobox

I'm being super bold and putting closed discussion formatting on the parameters I feel have reached consensus, and moving the two remaining ones to the bottom. Both male/female issue and romances parameter still seem pretty split on opinions. Please take this a good faith effort to move the discussion along towards conclusion, and "unclose" anything you feel I've done in error. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 03:37, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Date of birth

• Strong Oppose. For the age/birth, what is the policy in regards to that wp:tv discussion that formed consensus to stop using it? Do we have to follow that or is it a choice? Either way my opinion is not to include it, that discussion at the very least describes a lot of reasons not to include it, mainly original research, edit warring, clutter and not providing much benefit. I disagree that it's a point that helps you understand the character better; I think its better to describe in development prose, i.e. Character X was born on screen on this date, later appeared on screen on that date 5 years older, etc. I think it's misleading to have birth and/or SORAS date standalone in the infobox. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 12:23, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. What would we do if they are aged? We do we include the on-screen birth year, or the new one? Even if they are aged, the age changes, and we rarely have a source confirming the birth year. Either way, the information shouldn't be included for all the above reasons.Caringtype1 (talk) 16:49, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support. I may be in the minority, but I believe both the date of births/deaths parameters are needed. I mean it is a big part of anyone's identity, whether it is a real person, or a fictional character. I don't get why these parameters can be handled very well for characters on U. K. soaps, but not for the American soaps. My proposal, if characters are SORASed, then we use the revised date of birth instead of the original; the original can be mentioned in the article, but only the revised DOB appears in the infobox.--Nk3play2 ^{my buzz} 19:24, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Some characters have been SORASed multiple times, and others have changed because of their children's ages. It can get messy. Creativity97 21:57, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
• Question - can anyone confirm if the wp:tv consensus to stop using ages applies here? I would think it does, unless it has been reversed since then. If it applies, then the suggestion of using this field would be moot. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 00:17, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - I do not believe this field is needed in any infobox. This can only be an in-universe field. But then that creates problems because some character's were not born on-screen - some people may think the were born in the episode relevant to the date but that is not case. Birth would not be important to the character, if it was never a storyline for them. Seeings as we are all for change and in the step in the right direction, I feel this would be a bad move into the realms of in universe.Rain the 1 01:34, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support ~ It's good to list date of birth (SAROSed version) where ever we can. It's not saying we have to list it for everyone. Wherever it's sourced/agreed upon. It's good to give more insight about the character. Like Nk3play2 said, it's a big part of an identity. Arre 02:32, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
• Additional reasoning: I believe including a SORASed birth date in the infobox causes problems in terms of distinguishing fact from fiction. Further, the birth date would mention a time when the character (probably) was not appearing on the series, which would be confusing in an infobox-type place where the reader may not move on to the article. Also, it seems to me a SORASed birthdate is the definition of WP:INUNIVERSE. I don't think the on-screen birth date could be used either, as it would conflict with any SORASing and be confusing. I think describing in prose per MoS fiction guidelines is best. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 02:53, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Statυs (talk) 03:17, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose: Like I stated to Kelly Marie 0812, we don't have a soap opera policy, and a guideline wasn't created for it; it was simply a matter of removing the age field from the infoboxes (which, as you know, was carried out for all television character genres) and this being the way that not having the age field was enforced. The "Date of birth" and "Date of death" fields are the same as the "Age" field...in that they can be used to assert how old any character is. And as we know, soap operas often don't go by real-world age...either because of Soap Opera Rapid Aging Syndrome or de-aging. My opinion has changed since the previous discussion about this three years ago. I don't much mind at all these days that the age field isn't included for soap opera character infoboxes. But for primetime television shows and film, where the age matter isn't much of an issue, I sometimes find myself wishing that the age field was included in those instances. I feel that the wider consensus -- meaning the consensus that is still carried out by WP:TV -- trumps adding the field. The age topic can be discussed in the character articles, if supported by WP:Reliable sources. Flyer22 (talk) 03:49, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Date of death

• Oppose. Same question on the relevance of the wp:tv consensus, but also does WP:TENSE apply here? Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 12:23, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support. For my reasoning, see the above.--Nk3play2 ^{my buzz} 19:41, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - Always found this pointless as characters do not die - death means that something no longer exist and these are works of fiction and do exist. They played a death storyline though, the character was used to portray the issue of death. As I have said else where, why would a date for a death storyline be supplied when dates for other significant storylines would not be. Date of marriage, date of first job, date of kiss... You get where I am going.Rain the 1 01:38, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Rain, I noticed that this field is included in the Hollyoaks character infobox; has it worked well for you all? One thing about it is that it is spoilerish. Flyer22 (talk) 04:17, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support ~ Characters don't die, but it should still be addressed in their info-box when they die. If they return, it should be removed. Birth/Date are really important things and should be listed where possible. Arre 02:34, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Statυs (talk) 03:17, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose: Like I stated to Kelly Marie 0812, we don't have a soap opera policy, and a guideline wasn't created for it; it was simply a matter of removing the age field from the infoboxes (which, as you know, was carried out for all television character genres) and this being the way that not having the age field was enforced. The "Date of birth" and "Date of death" fields are the same as the "Age" field...in that they can be used to assert how old any character is. And as we know, soap operas often don't go by real-world age...either because of Soap Opera Rapid Aging Syndrome or de-aging. My opinion has changed since the previous discussion about this three years ago. I don't much mind at all these days that the age field isn't included for soap opera character infoboxes. But for primetime television shows and film, where the age matter isn't much of an issue, I sometimes find myself wishing that the age field was included in those instances. I feel that the wider consensus -- meaning the consensus that is still carried out by WP:TV -- trumps adding the field. The age topic can be discussed in the character articles, if supported by WP:Reliable sources. Flyer22 (talk) 03:55, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Introducer

Creator is on both templates and is the writer(s) who created the character (right?). Introducer is on box2 and is the EP who introduced and any subsequent EPs that reintroduced the character. I am copying Rain's description on introducer vs. creator from above for better clarification. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 02:48, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

The "Introducer" field is used for telling the reader who introduced the character. The executive producer/series producer is the person who introduced the character. The creator is the person who created the character - producer wants a new character and he gets a writer to create the new character. Some creates a character - the producer introduces them into the series. Really simple stuff.

We only use the creator field when the information is available. Half of the time you won't need to use it, because it has never been revealed who created the character. The itroducer is always included because it is so easy to find out who the producer is/was at the time.Rain the 1 20:34, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

You will need a source for the creator though - it is not always the head writer and other members of the production team could create one. I know of one soap where two writers were given the job to create a character each. The producer chose the ones he liked and introduced them.Rain the 1 01:23, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

• Personally I'm neutral. Support. I think we need to be very specific in the guidelines, on whether reintroduced is included or not, and only to fill in creator when it's known, that it's not just the head writer at the time. I almost feel Creator could be removed in favor of Introducer, after understanding them better. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 12:23, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose. Who really cares about this information? It's going into over-detailing, and could get cluttered with the whole "reintroduced" thing. also it's pointless, confusing, and needs clarification for anyone to be able to understand it.Caringtype1 (talk) 16:49, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support. I liked the way these were used in the infobox 2 template. I think it makes sense because a character's creator isn't always the person who introduced the character. However, I agree with the above user, only the original creator and the original introducer are needed.--Nk3play2 ^{my buzz} 19:27, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support. I feel it's important information who introduced the character, and should be in the info-box. Creativity97 21:57, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support. I also think we should keep it, since sometimes the when a character is introduced, the soap doesn't have a head writer. Jester66 (talk) 00:29, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support - A field that holds a key piece of information about the character - who decided to introduce them into the series. The character would not exist if no one introduced them. Plus it adds to the real world perspective.Rain the 1 01:19, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support Per all of the reasons listed above. It's also useful for characters who have left and come back to see who introduced them to the series. Arre 02:36, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
• Remove Statυs (talk) 03:17, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Expanding family parameters - half relatives

• Oppose.I don't think this distinction should be made at all, neither by separate parameter nor in parenthesis after. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 12:23, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Definitely don't think relatives need to be defined; whether half-relatives or whole relatives, they're still relatives.--Nk3play2 ^{my buzz} 19:28, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Agree with Kelly and Nk3play2. Relatives are relatives. Distinction isn't needed. Creativity97 21:58, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Stupid, plus "Relatives" field should be removed anyway. Arre 02:44, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Statυs (talk) 03:17, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - Half only really applies to siblings, anyway. Conquistador2k6 Talk to me, dammit! 11:58, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Expanding family parameters - adoptive/step parents

• Support. I think this would help remove the parenthesis qualifier clutter. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 12:23, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Definitely needed to avoid users labeling the the relatives names; that's how the box often gets cluttered.--Nk3play2 ^{my buzz} 22:33, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support - This is a good way to stop infoboxes from streching with notes in brackets after character names. It is better to explain as "Adoptive mother: Ellen Lowell" than "Mother: Ellen Lowell (adoptive)".01:07, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support per the comment above; Notes/Brackets are very annoying. Arre 02:45, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Statυs (talk) 03:17, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
• Question, but probably Oppose. If we included these, would we have to include the distinction for biological parents? If so, it would be too disorganized, and cluttered, but if we didn't, it would be too confusing.Caringtype1 (talk) 17:43, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

The parameters would be: parents, adoptiveparents, stepparents, children, adoptivechildren, stepchildren (ignoring male/female issue for the sake of this section/question). So all qualifiers currently in parenthesis after parents/children would go away. Biological would be the "parents" field, I think its safe to assume it's implied. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 01:06, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Cause of death

Where is the cause of death? Shouldn't it be there? Jester66 (talk) 00:45, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what to think about this parameter. I think cause/reason plus this are confusing. I understand the difference, just don't think they are utilized correctly. I think there should be just one. I would be okay with including cause of death and not cause/reason. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 01:04, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Well sometimes the cause/reason for them leaving the show, is that either they left or were dropped from the canvas or appeared as a spirit/ghost what have you, or they died or disappeared/presumed dead. And the cause of death would be how they died. It's not really that difficult. Jester66 (talk) 01:09, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

• Remove - I think this is verging too in-universe. We want to give the impression to readers that these are works of fictions, characters never die or cease to exist - they portrayed a death storyline, but these characters portray many different stories and they do not get a special mention in the infobox - removing it is a step in the right direction.Rain the 1 01:18, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
• Remove I agree with Rain. The WP:TENSE, in/out of universe stuff isn't consistent. We'll remove "former" from occupations but then give a date of death, etc... Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 01:26, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
• Remove for the above reasons.--Nk3play2 ^{my buzz} 03:15, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
• Remove Statυs (talk) 03:17, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Cause/reason

This may be similar to cause of death, but just to be crystal clear, I'm separating it out.

• Oppose. Mixes in/out of universe, not consistent. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 01:26, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

What would it be used for - how the character exited in the series - or the actual reason - eg. Actor quit, producers axed the character, actor fell ill?Rain the 1 01:41, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Right now, it is used for in-universe, with some inconsistencies. Examples are "left town," "XYZ reason for leaving town," "dropped off canvas," "XYZ method of dying" (personally I move all these to cause of death or why have that parameter), or reasons for reappearance after death: "appears as XYZ's hallucination," etc. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 01:50, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - The field really can be misused like that can't it. If they appear in an hallucination - then the cause of leaving would be "XYZ stopped hallucinating"... 0_oRain the 1 01:54, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose ~ Not needed. Arre 02:46, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
• Remove - Never thought it was really needed.--Nk3play2 ^{my buzz} 03:14, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Statυs (talk) 03:17, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
• Remove Cause/reason. Pointless and misleading. Creativity97 16:11, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Expanding family parameters - male vs. female

• Strong oppose. I think it's more clutter to separate brother from sister, aunt from uncle, etc. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 12:23, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Disagree; I think gender separation is needed.--Nk3play2 ^{my buzz} 19:33, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support. I feel that gender separation is needed as well. Creativity97 21:57, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
• Question - can you guys explain what you think is benefited by splitting them? I understand with adoptive/step, splitting them out allows the parenthesis to be removed which takes away clutter. I'm not seeing the difference/benefit over using one parameter with line breaks... Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 00:24, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Strongly Support. Mainly because it will keep users from trying to specify that the person is a brother or sister, or mother or father, aunt or uncle, by putting that relationship in parentheses. I've looked at the Infobox 2 template over and over again, and though it has a lot of parameters, it is very organized. The code made seem a bit long, but when the template is used in an actual character article, I think it makes it look very neat and organized. I think it is so opposed because of the amount of parameters and people aren't taking the time to actually look at the template being used in an article; here is an example of the EastEnders character, Sharon Watts.--Nk3play2 ^{my buzz} 03:13, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

The only articles I see with those words in parenthesis are older articles that just need clean up. I personally don't come across people adding it. Can you strike one of your two "supports"? Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 03:18, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Also I'd just like to note that I have taken a lot of time to look at the parameters, that's not why I oppose... Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 03:19, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - I'm all for removing clutter.Rain the 1 01:04, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Creates too much clutter.Caringtype1 (talk) 01:39, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support ~ It's more organised to look at. And Info-box 2 also has "Adoptive" fields, which is even more organised and people don't have to use annoying brackets e.g.: (sister) (adoptive sister) (legal adoptive brother). It's not clutter - It may be more, but it doesn't add clutter to each field. Arre 02:40, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Speaking specifically for male/female differences that aren't currently put in parenthesis, what's the benefit? There's no wording removed, just more parameters/words added... Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 03:14, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Statυs (talk) 03:17, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Would create more clutter. D4nnyw14 (talk) 00:18, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Romances

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

See earlier discussion on this talk page, doesn't seem to have been much consensus other than the current info given in romances needs to be cut down (i.e. kisses, crushes, flirtations), with some support to remove altogether.

• Remove, but open to a compromise - would changing "spouse" to "significant other" and then including any major romantic relationships here maybe solve the problem? Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 12:23, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
• Keep. Sometimes characters are defined by their romantic partners, for example, Robin Scorpio's first love Stone Cates gave her HIV and it has defined the character since she was diagnosed.--Nk3play2 ^{my buzz} 19:40, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
• Remove. For longtime characters who have had countless romances, it makes it extremely long and overdetailed. If a romantic partner was crucial to character's storyline or development, they can be extensively explained in the article. Creativity97 21:57, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
• Question - what do people think about using "significant other" parameter as a combo of spouses and relevant significant romantic partners? Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 00:21, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
• Keep. I also support keeping the romances part, every other site has it, why not keep it. Like Nk3play2 ^{my buzz} most characters are defined by their romantic partners, even kisses, crushes and flirtations. Jester66 (talk) 00:27, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

If it does stay, I strongly feel kisses, flirtations etc not be included. I think that was pretty much the consensus a few sections above. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 00:59, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

All right then, kisses and flirtations will be removed. But I think those who were romantically involved with the persons, this includes them being lovers, dating and affairs should be included. Jester66 (talk) 01:06, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

• Remove - There are so many other fields that take priority over this, this is a problematic field that causes edit wars and decreases article stability. It can be trivial at times and is more fitting to a fansite.Rain the 1 01:03, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

It IS a soap opera, shouldn't the romances the characters' have had be included? Jester66 (talk) 01:13, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Included in the article, yes, but not needed in the infobox. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 01:33, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - I'd like to make the comparison that most sites that include romances also include a list of crimes/maladies, friends/foes, etc that we already consider not appropriate for infobox, I'm beginning to see romances in the same light. I do feel there are some significant ones, but character-altering romances aren't common enough to keep it. If the parameter is kept it needs to be called something else other than romances. Or we'll spend all our time reverting clutter. Anyone have an opinion on using "significant other" as combo of spouse and significant relationships? Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 01:33, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Major romantic interests are an important part of the character.Caringtype1 (talk) 01:35, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
• Strong Remove ~ Unneeded, adds unnecessary clutter and some people don't know what constitutes for a "romance". Notable romances can be mentioned in development or lead. Arre 02:38, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
• Remove Statυs (talk) 03:17, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
• Keep. I don't see why this needs removal or how it's difficult to define "romance." I know that some editors have included "kisses, crushes, flirtations," which is WP:FANCRUFT (and I, for the life of me, can't see how a crush is a romance), but those type of additions should, of course, always be removed. Since some editors want to include those additions as "romance," we should let WP:Reliable sources determine what is a romance. The "Romances" field is beneficial to readers and is not always covered by the "Spouse" field. Flyer22 (talk) 04:06, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: Template:Infobox_character uses significantother in addition to spouse parameters, and wikilinks it to the significant other article. Maybe keeping but renaming the parameter would be a compromise? Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 04:38, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
• Strong Remove. As someone who used to support keeping this field, my main reason for change is the inability to keep articles stable when this field is included. While I do not disagree that there are some significant relationships for characters that did not result in marriage, I feel we are not focusing on the fact that we are not suggesting removal of any mention of these significant relationships from the article altogether, just the infobox. They are mentioned not only in the plot section but if truly essential there should be a section on their impact on the character's development, and/or even a brief mention in the lead. I do not think the solution is keeping the field and removing any additions of non-essential content. Soap articles are already prone to vandal edits, lowering the quality standards of the articles and their chances of GA approval. I also do not think the argument that "other sites" include these lists is relevant, as most other sites are fan sites, and/or also include lists we already do not deem encyclopedic (i.e. friends/foes, crimes, maladies, etc). In summary, I think after getting used to the change, we will find our articles taking a step in a more stable direction, and not as hindered by the lack of specific infobox mention as we fear. Also - please ask any interested parties you know of that have not commented to weigh in. We seem to have reached a standstill in the discussion and I think we need to finalize this before implementing the updated box. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 22:52, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
• Remove. Trivial information that is not needed, it causes edit wars and instability in articles. Some articles would become overly detailed if we included all romances and it is too subjective, if we decided on criteria to decide which romances to include the criteria could easily be challenged and it would be too problematic. Romances that do not result in marriage can easily be covered in other parts of the article too. D4nnyw14 (talk) 00:15, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
• It is my belief that this discussion has reached rough consensus to remove the "Romances" parameter. Including the related discussion a few sections above. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 17:27, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
• Remove but keep info - I think the better way to handle this would be to not have it as part of the infobox, but it could be included as a table, or a sidebar navbox, etc. (While of course being noted in the article text itself.) Romances could mean anything from a single interaction to a long time committed relationship. Which, to me, seems too complex to explain in the space an infobox provides. - jc37 07:48, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Family vs. relationships

Box1 currently uses the header "relationships" for the bottom section, where box2 uses "family." Please voice your opinion on one or the other.

• I'm neutral. Family This section only includes family relations so it is the better, more specific term. There are a lot of "relationships" the character has that aren't included in the box. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 13:53, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
• Family - This is more encyclopedic. It includes relations and spouses. "Relationships" really means any type of relationship and isn't suitable for an info-box which is only listing family members, spouses etc. Plus, the "Romances" section is completely unneeded in the character's info-box; and along with the heading 'Relationships' should be removed. Especially for long-running characters. Arre 15:55, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
• Relationships. I am choosing relationships because if we decide to keep Romances, then those romantic partners wouldn't be considered family, unless they actually married the character.--Nk3play2 ^{my buzz} 17:01, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
• Family. Changing my stance on this; it is obviously a war that I can't win, so I'm giving in. Keep it as family since romances will most likely not be included in the new Infobox.--Nk3play2 ^{my buzz} 19:50, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
• Relationships. I'm in very strong support for "Relationships". Relationships are how the character connects and interacts with other characters. Family just shows the character's family. Which isn't really that notable beyond the series.Caringtype1 (talk) 17:17, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
• Family - "relationships" is too potentially broad. One can have a working relationship with a co-worker for example. - jc37 07:48, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Other relatives

• Strong Remove. Main reason is stability of articles and edit wars. Much like the current guidelines' example of why not to include "step-great-grandchildren", any relative put here can be described in article if important, or found by following the appropriate links (i.e. if you really want to know who someone's great grandfather is, simply click on their father or grandfather to find out). Right now it is a hot spot for edit wars; many editors add inlaws, god parents/children, cousins "removed" or "second", etc etc. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 03:38, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
• Strong remove ~ adds unneeded clutter. The necessary fields are present and this isn't needed. Arre 04:14, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
• Remove - The "Family" entry should be enough. - jc37 07:48, 10 December 2012 (UTC)