Template talk:Infobox soap character/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Species

FYI, I had originally designed this infobox without the species field, but I added it later when I realized that it is useful for characters like Siren (Passions character) and Precious (Passions character). However, these articles are very rare and in general the parameter shouldn't be used for most characters; no need to denote everyone as "human." — TAnthony^Talk 20:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Image sizing

How do we adjust the image's size (in case the image is smaller than 210px)? --Silvestris (talk) 12:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

We locked in the size to standardize images across articles; some editors tend to size them way to big. But I've suggested a workaround on your talk page. — TAnthony^Talk 16:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Not in use/Changing template

What's the point of this Template now, cos noone uses it, stuff like eg. "Coronation Street character" or "Emmerdale character", but i prefer this template, so i think it should be put back in use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dodgechris (talk • contribs) 01:30, July 28, 2008

Every American soap uses this template, so it is certainly in wide use. — TAnthony^Talk 15:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

But what of putting it back on the english soaps? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dodgechris (talk • contribs) 06:03, July 29, 2008

I believe the individual character templates you mention pre-date this one; I'm assuming they wanted the show name built in (and perhaps other specifics) but I created this template to be more customizable (you can add any show name, etc.) You can bring up the idea at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Coronation Street and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Emmerdale. — TAnthony^Talk 15:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

So, shall we change the Coronation Street character template back to this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dodgechris (talk • contribs) 12:19, August 6, 2008

Like I said above, you need to bring it up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Coronation Street before you make any such change. The Project may have a good reason why the current template works best for them. — TAnthony^Talk 03:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Merging already worked for two templates. Check: Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2008_May_11#Template:Brookside_Character and Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2008_May_18#Template:Hollyoaks_character. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that we, at least, must name the basic parameters the same in all soap opera infoboxes. Then check if there is reason to have the extra templates. For example: Actor's name must be under "name" in all templates. Since Coronation Street characters are fictional characters as well, we have to make the project cooperate. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

"Years" in infoboxes

It seems there is need to add Duration for characters who leave a show and reappear after some period. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Dates are usually written in next to the actor's name under "performers," since multiple actors are common (see Tina Lord). There are also and last appearance parameters ... what else are you envisioning? — TAnthony^Talk 17:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Copying from my talk page:

In 80% of the cases "years" (duration) in infoboxes is useless (and 100% unreferenced). Still, if you think it's important, we can add it to the generic {{Infobox soap character}}. That's the reason I am not removing from many of the infoboxes. I had that in mind. Friendly, Magioladitis (talk) 12:37, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it is important. For many soap characters, they do appear and disappear (Peter Barlow in Coronation Street is a perfect example) and it is important to show this in the infbox. Otherwise, it gives the impression in Barlow's case that he has appeared constantly since 1965. The infobox is the best and most concise way to put this info. If it could be put in the generic template that would be great. Kind Regards,--UpDown (talk) 12:40, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

-- Magioladitis (talk) 18:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm still confused, are you looking for like a calculated number of years the person has been on? I think that's getting a little trivial, spelling out the years should be enough. But you could always just enter templates like I did in List of longest-serving soap opera actors that do the math, I just think in general it's unnecessary. — TAnthony^Talk 18:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

First of all. I am good either way. Secondly, the Emmerdale wikiproject in its project used an entry called "years" in which it's noted in which years exactly a character appeared in the show. Right now I changed all transclusions to Infobox Emmerdale character 2 in Infobox soap character. Some editors believe that with this ways we are loosing the "years" entry. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh OK, I see what you mean now. It does seem unnecessary though; you have first and last appearances for a character and then individual performer dates, that clears up any issues about someone seeming to have appeared consistently for 20 years when they haven't. Plus, for current cast this number would have to be constantly updated annually for each person.— TAnthony^Talk 21:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

The US shows generally list all performers with dates in the character infobox, I'm not sure why you wouldn't so the same for a character like Peter Barlow (Coronation Street). The first thing I wondered when I looked at the article was, who were these other six actors who are mentioned? The infobox doesn't even tell me that Chris Gascoyne has only played him since 2000, even though he's the only actor listed. — TAnthony^Talk 21:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, please see my reasons given in my copied words above. Basically it is a quick, easy way to see when someone has actually appeared. Yes, if more than one actor has portrayed them, then the dates of the portrayal answer this, but what if one actor has portrayed them, but on and off - like Nick Cotton in EastEnders. Without the duration field - as exists on the EastEnders infobox - Cotton's article would be worse. It immediatley, easily, and concisely tells us when he has appeared. Otherwise, the infobox would suggest he has appeared constantly since 1985.--UpDown (talk) 08:02, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I completely see your point, I just think that the field is unnecessary because it would only be useful for characters who have been played by a single actor. I moved the duration info in Nick Cotton to illustrate what I think the solution should be; your "Introduced by" entries already include dates the same way so it fits right in. As in my example Tina Lord, this would be the only clear way to have dates for multiple performers anyway. What do you think? — TAnthony^Talk 15:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Your edit was quickly reverted I see - and to be honest I agree with the revert. Having a field for it is far simpler and clearer. I really can't see your objection to it. It applies to many people - so would be well used. I also think it looks messy next to the actors, the idea is to show when the character was on screen. A new field is the easiest way to have - what is the problem with including it. It does no harm.--UpDown (talk) 20:37, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

By all means, if someone wants to add it, fine ... but what are you going to do in the case of a character like Peter Barlow (Coronation Street)? Not mention the dates of the other performers at all? That would be a case of a template actually dictating the content of an article, and it should always be the other way around. Creating parameters that only apply to certain characters defeats the purpose of a standardized infobox in which everything looks the same and people know where to look to find certain information. You will have some characters with info there, and the others will presumably present the info in another way. It just seems like overkill, and the beauty of this template was always that it didn't have 100 parameters like the standard character box does. But as you say, there is no harm to put it in if you're insistent on using it, I will just resist its use for any series I'm involved with. — TAnthony^Talk 23:51, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

The parameter will be used for all characters, whether there was a break in their appearance or not - like the EastEnders character template currently does. The dates of the actors can also be put next to their names - or maybe in the main text in the correct section. I don't believe that clarifying when a character appeared in "overkill" at all. I would ask that someone install this, as I'm not 100% I'd get it right.--UpDown (talk) 07:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I've managed to add it using copy and paste from the EastEnders infobox.--UpDown (talk) 08:05, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying the clarification is overkill, I'm saying that adding a new parameter is; in any case, now that it's there, I'm curious how you're using it for multiple performers.— TAnthony^Talk 18:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Tfm nomination

{{editprotected}} Please add {{Tfm|Infobox soap character|Infobox soap character 2}} to the top of this template. This is for the current discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Template:Infobox soap character. Thanks! PC78 (talk) 22:07, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Done. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:10, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

{{edit protected}} Originally posted by myself at the Help Desk but told to come here - "Following this discussion via WP:SOAPS - changes need to be made to the Template:Infobox soap character. Following the discussion that was live for two weeks the outcome was that one colour should be used for the template. To make it more consistent the colour should now be matched to Template:Infobox soap character 2 - This template is protected, so could an Admin remove the option of the color field and ensure that the template uses only #cccfff - this will then match the second infobox."

Posted by user TEB728 - "The change that is needed in Template:Infobox soap character is {{{color|{{{colour|#c0c0c0}}}}}} → #cccfff four places. (For community discussion of the change see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Soap Operas#Universal Colour for US Soap Character Infoboxes.)Rain the 1 02:01, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done Skier Dude (talk) 05:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Is there anyway to make it over-ride existing pages using that template? Because that's a lot to possibly go through! _{MusicFreak7676} ^TALK! 17:44, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Requesting image size change

Quoted from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Soap Operas#Image sizes in Infobox soap character:

I am proposing a change in Template:Infobox soap character to reduce the mandatory image size in the infobox. I think 240px is excessive and as it is non free media, I think 200px is more appropriate. Plus it would then match the second infobox. Plus - IMO - It looks daft and stretches the infobox. Just no need.
— User:Raintheone

--George Ho (talk) 09:44, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done Tra (Talk) 15:07, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Another thing: why not changing sizes of image2, image3, and other images to 200px each? If 200px is too small, why not 210px or 220px? --George Ho (talk) 10:37, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done If by 'other images' you're referring to the one specified by |image= then that can't be changed here as the sizes are specified in the individual articles. Tra (Talk) 15:51, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Wait a minute, just because one editor wrote a proposal in one place, then another editor quoted that proposal here, why is the change immediately performed without a viable discussion? I do not think the change in image sizes look good at all because it is too small, nor do I understand why the change was made so quickly. The image sizes should all (as in image 1, 2 and 3) be reverted back to their original setting at 240px until a consensus is reached. The point here is that this is a community and just because 2 or 3 editors took part in this does not equal a consensus. Wait for more input before making such a drastic change. I vote no on the image sizes being changed to 200px and they should remain at 240px. Casanova88 (talk) 16:14, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with said user above, I vote no until a discussion is had and a complete consensus, not majority, is chosen. _{MusicFreak7676} ^TALK! 16:57, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I've reverted for now per above objections. Tra (Talk) 18:04, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposing a new parameter

I am proposing that we add another parameter for characters who have appeared on more then one soap opera (soaps that aren't spin-offs of the original). The series parameter seems to get a bit crowded for certain characters, most significantly Skye Chandler who has appeared on all three ABC soaps. The series parameter could just include the soap where the character originated and the "cross over" parameter could include the other soaps the character has appeared on with the duration.--Nk3play2 ^{my buzz} 03:56, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Proposed changes

After a lengthy discussion at WP:SOAPS, I am proposing these changes to the infobox, summarized below. A version of the complete proposed infobox can be found here in my sandbox.

The changes incorporate some aspects of Template:Infobox soap character 2, which has had success in use in UK soap character articles, many which have reached GA status. The discussion of major individual parameter changes can be found via this link.

1. "character" added to second bar. This further clarifies the subject as fictitious.
2. Removal of "Cause/reason". Currently used inconsistently and deemed unneeded.
3. Addition of "Introduced by" parameter directly following "Created by", which will be used to separately acknowledge Executive Producers and writers.
4. Addition of "Classification". To be used to clarify the character as present/former and contract/recurring/guest.
5. Removal of "Nickname." Not used in infobox2 and adds excessive clutter.
6. Addition of "Family". To be used to wikilink any existing pages of the major families the character belongs to.
7. Removal of "Gender". Overused field that adds clutter, not used in infobox2.
8. Removal of "Cause of death". Per WP:TENSE fictional characters live in a perpetual present state, calling out their death storyline is no more important than calling out other storylines. Not used in box2 and deemed unnecessary.
9. Removal of "Title". Overused field, not used by box2 that adds unnecessary clutter.
10. Addition of the following fields in their respective places: "adoptiveparents", "stepparents", adoptivechildren", "stepchildren". This will remove some of the cluttered qualifiers currently put in parenthesis after entries.
11. Change sibling(s) to sibling and spouse(s) to spouse.
12. Removal of "Romances". Excessive detail is added here that increases edit warring and reduces the stability of the articles. Essential information can be explained in the article.
13. Removal of "Other relatives". Excessive detail is added here that increases edit warring and reduces the stability of the articles. Essential information can be explained in the article.

Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 06:21, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

• Strong support. All of these changes are completely needed and will further improve the standard of these articles. It also includes less clutter. Arre 07:30, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
• Strong oppose I don't think "classification" was ever discussed, but I don't think it should be included. It's trivia, unneeded, and already said on The Cast members page. How does a nickname add clutter? It's a way that the character identifies themselves, and should be included. How does the family the character belongs to have to go in the info box? It seems a little excessive, like it could cause edit wars. I have already said how "character" adds nothing, and doesn't fit.Caringtype1 (talk) 17:29, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Classification is not trivia, it is related to the actor's current relation with the series, adding real world context. Family would contain itself to linked existing articles, avoiding clutter and edit wars. I'm not following how you oppose those two but support nicknames, this seems inconsistent and rather just opposed to change. Essiential nicknames are mentioned in the lead and/or commonname, the rest of the parameter is currently full of trivia, and unessential information, as you claim the other two would be, while classification/family have clear guidelines on what to include. These changes were assumed uncontroversial, especially with so many articles completely adapting to infobox 2 (which includes the changes in question), this proposal is an attempt to combine the two into a compromising solution. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 18:13, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

As for Classification, we would only put the current classification, correct? Because many recurring actors are later promoted to contract, and contract demoted to recurring, but we would only put we they are now? Like Monica Quartermaine, she was on contract for several years, but now she is only recurring. So her class-action would be recurring?Caringtype1 (talk) 18:46, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes I believe that to be correct, and previous contract statuses would be explained in the prose of the article. In all these parameter suggestions, we're really just trying to take some guidance from box2 that not only works well with those who use it but many of their articles are stable enough to reach GA status. That being said I know there is opposition to just switching over to box2, so I am hoping these changes can help keep box1 in use for US soaps but in better quality. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 18:57, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Then I guess I can get on board with most of these changes, but I really do feel that we shouldn't add "character". We don't have to keep saying that the article is about a character, especially if the first sentence says "... is a fictional character from the....", it's unnecessary! Also if you look at a page using box1, and a page using box2, the box1's second bar looks much cleaner, without a clunky added word.Caringtype1 (talk) 19:08, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I understand your viewpoint, and what swayed me was the fact that the word just further distinguishes the person as fictitious, especially when viewing infobox on its own as a brief summary of the article. Also the infobox template is controlled from a central place where as individual leads are not. I wouldn't want this one part to hold up the process, and would be willing to compromise and not include it, but I haven't heard any other opposition about including it. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 19:24, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support, yet oppose: While I support several of the changes, I still am apprehensive over the "romances" and the "created by/introduced by", but everyone else is just fine. Jester66 (talk) 20:50, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: Caringtype1, I'm not sure you know what trivia is, please see WP:Trivia before labeling something which is encyclopedic as trivia. 'Classification' is completely needed and a very good way to classify the character as past, present, regular, recurring. Additionally 'character' is fine and does not detract anything. It is completely necessary. Arre 01:33, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I believe all opposition has been addressed and/or consensus has been formed to make the above changes, in the above discussion and also at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Soap_Operas#Parameter_changes_to_infobox. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 19:22, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Any/all changes and corresponding code can be found here: User:Kelly_Marie_0812/Template:Infobox_soap_character for ease of updating. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 19:25, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I feel that the Romance field should stay, for the reasons I stated here, and I don't see why we need the Species field. Soap opera characters are usually human; the only time I can see the Species field being needed is if a non-human animal is a prominent character on the series. Flyer22 (talk) 02:12, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

What about the Spouse field? As for the Nickname field, well, that's sort of covered by the Alias field (I know that they aren't the same thing, but hey). Flyer22 (talk) 02:18, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I believe the conversation at wp:soaps reached rough consensus to remove romances. I would be fine with species being taken off. Spouse field is the same minus the (s). Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 02:33, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I just looked at that part of the discussion at WP:SOAPS, seeing what was stated since my comment. It's obvious how there can be stated to be rough consensus to remove the Romance field, but the majority view is currently only ahead by two and I don't see WP:Consensus (as in consensus based on more than just head count) to remove the field. I won't change my mind on my belief that it should stay, but I also won't throw a fit if it's removed (LOL). I see that the Spouse field is listed under Family in Template:Infobox soap character 2; I don't like that. A spouse is not necessarily family, especially ex-spouses. And I do feel that ex-spouses should be listed, with parenthetical clarification that they are exes, just like we've always done. So I would prefer the Family field stay titled Relationships. And of course we should exclude "Date of birth" and "Date of death," per WP:Consensus at WP:SOAPS. Flyer22 (talk) 02:43, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

My opinion of rough consensus is also taking into account the precursory discussion and comments here, as well as the fact that recently many users were completely switching to box2, which does not include romances. I also am taking into consideration the weight of the arguments versus head count; arguments towards removing "romances" suggest more stable articles and touch on policy points like trivia and the infobox guidelines on essential info, whereas arguments to keep it seem to just say they are important. I am obviously biased toward removing them, but in all honesty and as someone who previously asked to keep them, I just feel they are too hard to control. So much time is spent reverting edits like these. I think we need to focus on the fact that this is only the infobox, any removed info can be explained in the article. But I digress - I really just want to move forward at this point. As for family vs. relationships, I have to disagree that spouses are not family. Ex-spouses would still be listed, I don't think anyone has suggested that they not be. The section that briefly discussed this has leaned towards "family", with comments suggesting the inclusion of romances would be one deciding factor, and if they weren't included then family may be more appropriate. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 03:03, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that other Romance discussion. I don't have much more to state on the Romance field topic at this time, except the following: I don't feel that it is too hard to control. I don't see many WP:Fancruft additions of including things in that field that clearly aren't romances, but I also don't look at/edit soap opera articles as much as I once did (so maybe that's why I don't see that type of fancruft often). My argument for keeping the field was about more than just "It's important" and I feel that some of the others made good arguments for keeping the field; they are correct that soap opera is generally about romance. But the "It's important" argument is not a bad one. I don't feel that a field that is considered one of the more important ones among Wikipedia soap opera editors should be removed simply because it is perceived by some to be too hard to maintain. Yes, I of course know that there have been other arguments against the field than just that one. But I deal with articles that are too hard to maintain all the time; it doesn't mean that those articles should be removed. Like I stated, "The 'Romances' field is beneficial to readers and is not always covered by the 'Spouse' field."

As for spouses being family, I didn't state that they aren't. I stated that they are not necessarily family. Many soap opera characters are forced into marriages, marry people they don't like and/or hardly spend any time with, get a divorce soon after marriage; that's not family when the characters don't even consider the spouses family. And ex spouses specifically? That goes without saying; they are exes. Often, a character has no kids with an ex spouse and hasn't been close with an ex spouse for years. Not family, in my opinion. I also don't think most people think of "spouse" when they think of family. For example, people often ask others, "Are you married? Got any family?"

But anyway, those are the only views I have on those subjects at this time. Flyer22 (talk) 03:42, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

My comment on being hard to maintain is in regards to article stability. There are a lot of opinions, reverting, etc with this field in my experience editing soap articles. Inclusion where notable in the article, in my opinion, is sufficient. I disagree that a line needs to be drawn between family and exes. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 04:06, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Proposed changes: round 1

{{editprotected}} As this proposal includes many aspects and there have been many conversations different places, I am amending the proposal to first change the parameters with no opposition and/or unanimous consensus.

1. Removal of "Cause/reason". Currently used inconsistently and deemed unneeded. Unanimous consensus here
2. Removal of "Nickname." Not used in infobox2 and adds excessive clutter. No opposition.
3. Removal of "Gender". Overused field that adds clutter, not used in infobox2. No opposition.
4. Removal of "Cause of death". Per WP:TENSE fictional characters live in a perpetual present state, calling out their death storyline is no more important than calling out other storylines. Not used in box2 and deemed unnecessary. Unanimous consensus here.
5. Removal of "Title". Overused field, not used by box2 that adds unnecessary clutter. No opposition.
6. Change sibling(s) to sibling and spouse(s) to spouse.
7. Removal of "Other relatives". Excessive detail is added here that increases edit warring and reduces the stability of the articles. Essential information can be explained in the article. No opposition/briefly mentioned here.

Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 04:24, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Done. Nyttend (talk) 12:51, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Question: Why is "sibling" now singular, when the others (other than spouse, since you're only supposed to have one at a time) are still plural. It's obviously possible to have more than one. –anemoneprojectors– 12:15, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry that was a typo on my part I meant to write "change sibling(s) to siblings". Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 12:53, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh dear. As an admin, I can fix it! –anemoneprojectors– 16:29, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Awesome, thank you!! Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 00:55, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Remaining proposed changes

Hi everyone - here are the remaining proposed changes, I believe most have reached some sort of consensus but please discuss if anyone thinks something hasn't reached consensus to change.

Due to the code complexity of the requested changes, the full infobox with changes is saved in the template sandbox here. This includes non-breaking spaces between all parameters with more than one word, and updated subheader code that won't show if there isn't any information underneath it. The rest of the changes that are content based are described below (but also included in the linked sandbox).

• Removal of "Romances". Request for closure here at this discussion stated consensus to remove.

• Addition of "Introduced by" directly below "Created by". Explanation and what I believe is consensus to add here at this discussion.

• Addition of "Classification" directly below "spin off appearances" and before the start of the "Profile" header.. There hasn't been a specific discussion but I've only seen one comment in opposition so far.

• Addition of "Family" directly above "Parents", as the first parameter in "Family" section. This would be for wikilinked entries to existing family articles. Again no specific discussion but haven't seen much opposition.

• Addition of "adoptiveparents" and "stepparents" directly following the "parents" parameter. I believe there is rough consensus here at this discussion.

• Addition of adoptivechildren" and "stepchildren" directly following the "children" parameter, rationale same as above.

• Addition of "character" to the series name parameter. Only seen one editor in opposition.

• Change "Relationships" heading to "Family". Rough consenses here at this discussion.

Thanks! Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 01:50, 13 December 2012 (UTC) Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 02:01, 15 December 2012 (UTC) Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 07:38, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Done! Glad you did the sandbox thing! –anemoneprojectors– 08:56, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

TfM

please apply this notice:

{{Tfm/dated|page=Infobox soap character|otherpage=Infobox soap character 2|link=Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 August 27#Template:Infobox soap character 2|help=off|type=sidebar}}

ASAP. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:13, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Done --Redrose64 (talk) 16:56, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:58, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Two questions

1. Why did the two infoboxes merge?
2. Why shouldn't birth and death be on there?
Boushenheiser (talk) 22:29, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

@Boushenheiser:

1. see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 August 27#Template:Infobox soap character 2
2. see #Date of Births/Deaths and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Archive 11#Age fields in fictional character infoboxes.

–anemoneprojectors– 23:02, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Error

I've noticed an error in the 'family' section. The first 's' in 'sisters' is in lowercase, it should be in uppercase. Boushenheiser (talk) 11:05, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. –anemoneprojectors– 13:58, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Merge

TFD closed as merge with {{Infobox soap character 2}}. Obviously the two templates have different parameters so for now we need to include them all - which is why I made Template:Infobox soap character 2/sandbox. Is everyone ok for this to be implemented now? We can then discuss any changes after. –anemoneprojectors– 22:53, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and merged the two templates but actually used the basic layout from this page (starting {| class="infobox"), rather than the other template (which used {{infobox}}). If anyone sees anything that's broken, let me know. –anemoneprojectors– 09:44, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

The documentation will need to be updated. –anemoneprojectors– 09:51, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Just to say that when I merged the two templates, I didn't include the dates of birth and death that infobox 2 had. I did this because of prior consensus at this template and WikiProject Television. Thought I should mention that. –anemoneprojectors– 14:30, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

The way it was discussed, I assumed the discussion would be opened once again due to the merge. I didn't realize the merge wouldn't include dates of births/deaths.--Nk3play2 ^{my buzz} 20:33, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

The sandbox is far too detailed. Infoboxes should include an over-view of information. That's why Infobox1 is better with just "Parents", "Siblings", "Marriages", etc. The details can be included within the article if readers would like further explanation. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 21:48, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

The merge was a complete merge - the only reason I left out birth and death dates is because of previous consensus on this template and at the Wikiproject. The sandbox is detailed because it is a complete merge of two templates, which has now been carried out. This was done because of consensus at the TFD. –anemoneprojectors– 23:00, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Regarding family members - nobody is being forced to use three fields for the same people, e.g. parents, mother and father, all at the same time. Before the merge, Template:Infobox soap character 2 separated family by sex whereas this template did not. Therefore all options need to be retained so that hundreds of pages don't lose the information in the infoboxes. For some fields to be removed requires a HELL of a lot of editing, and I'm not willing to do that. So I think it's best for everyone to keep both options. –anemoneprojectors– 23:07, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

That's a good solution for family members for now, but hopefully the gender specific parameters can eventually be phased out.Caringtype1 (talk) 19:55, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

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. As noted by livelikemusic above, this template was better before the merge. Not to mention, that it'd been extensively worked out not that long ago. Flyer22 (talk) 16:25, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

The merge was a (near) complete merge, so because the two templates used different fields, they all had to be added. This doesn't change the articles that were using either template - you are not being asked to use every field in every article. So I don't understand your complaint. The only pages that were affected were ones that used the old infobox 2. The ones that already used this one have not changed in any way whatsoever. –anemoneprojectors– 08:23, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Image2 and Image3

Since the merge, pages that used infobox2 and had image2 or image3 no longer display correctly, so require editing to fix it. However, 240px is too large, it doesn't match the image at the top, and especially in the case of Lou Beale, the image is stretched to larger than actual size. Any ideas? –anemoneprojectors– 13:58, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Obviously we can edit pages using image2 pages so that image becomes image1 and therefore the same size as image2, but not being able to change the image's size, even by 1px, can cause problems sometimes when a new image is uploaded to replace the old one and some bizarre error that's been around for years but nobody has figured out how/bothered to fix means that the old picture is still displayed but all stretchy. I did it for Peggy Mitchell but I don't really want to continue. –anemoneprojectors– 12:11, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh I could implement an imagesize (and image1size, image2size, image3size) field, defaulting to what it currently is, but with the option to change it.... Any comments on that? –anemoneprojectors– 12:19, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I've done what I suggested, so I hope nobody objects. It's kind of necessary right now. –anemoneprojectors– 16:03, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

If you change the code to "Image1", "Image2" and "Image3" before it was automatically scaled to 240px, which was already determined as an appropriate size for character images at WP:SOAPS between editors after the size was changed without notice. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 00:57, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

It's not an appropriate size for all images. 240px works well for landscape-orientated images, but not for portrait ones, where 200px is more appropriate. Also it doesn't work for images that aren't 240px wide anyway - some are only about 160px so would be stretched and therefore would look pixellated (example: File:Emma cooke as pat harris.JPG is only 167px). It hasn't changed the look of any of the articles that used this infobox originally, so again I don't know why you're objecting. –anemoneprojectors– 08:42, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Why are you acting so defensive? I don't appreciate the attitude I feel I'm getting from you by simply stating something that was already previously decided at WP:SOAPS by users using the infoboxes. And I never objected. I never once said "I object". I was simply stating something that may or may not fix the issue. Instead, I'm getting shot an attitude as if I'm some stupid person. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 14:51, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, it came across to me as an objection. To be honest I was a little confused because your first reply didn't seem to be a complete sentence. I was just saying that 240px is not appropriate for all images (File:Emma cooke as pat harris.JPG is only 167px wide), and there's no harm in giving the option in articles where the images were already 200px or smaller. In fact, I have been forced to add imagealt to this template because image1 didn't allow an alt description to be added to an image, even though it's necessary for articles to reach FA status, so the image(0) field hasn't worked properly for some time. As for being defensive, I'm only defending the articles that used infobox2. Tone doesn't come across well in writing so I'm sorry that you think I have an attitude. Additionally, consensus can change, and consensus was to merge the two templates - that should include merging image sizes. I wanted as little disruption to the look of articles as possible, so that means using image size options. Also I was possibly the only person who was willing to actually perform the merge, and I didn't want complaints from either side (i.e. editors of articles using either template originally). Articles that used this template before the merge haven't changed, so in my mind there shouldn't be any from the editors of those articles. –anemoneprojectors– 15:25, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

By the way, I've just checked the image size discussion over at WP:SOAPS' archives. It took place in March 2012, and the discussion apparently ended without reaching a consensus. –anemoneprojectors– 15:34, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Alternative images

Infobox soap character 2 had a bar above image2 and image3 with "Alternative image(s)" written on it, to separate the pictures from the profile. I didn't spot this until now - the infoboxes look strange without it now. May I bring it back? –anemoneprojectors– 16:14, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I do not think it is needed at all. Completely unnecessary, and it workS better without itCaringtype1 (talk) 16:48, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Please, bring it back it make it more professional and readers might not know what it means if the buch of random pictures at the bottom. Trust me, there is readers that are not as smart as we are. Also, as noted above the infoboxes look strange without it now. Furthermore, @AnemoneProjectors: I do not see the reason why you brought it up, no one had an issue with it before, so this no need of a disscussion. But that JMO.  — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 19:37, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. It's a random, extra bar that has no purpose, and makes the box look more disjointed and confusing. Readers might not be smart, but they definitely do not need to be told they are looking at an image.Caringtype1 (talk) 21:48, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

You might be right. But this issue does not need concern because with the bar or without it I do not why people would care and It is sad that you do. I believe that it should be there but in then end I dont give a damn about it. Therefore, do whatever you want. But @AnemoneProjectors:, I still would like a response for my question. Feel free to ping me.  — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 22:40, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I think it is not needed. It's a senseless headline. The images there are obviously to state alternate notable actors/actresses in the roles for those recast. It's too cluttering. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 00:55, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

@Livelikemusic: How is it cluttering? It was used in the old infobox2, and was not cluttering. It was sensible. Not that many articles even have a secondary image. In some articles it looks like the images are in the occupations list. Having a small blue bar makes it look neater. It just looks wrong now, listed under "profile". They're not a part of the character's profile, they are images. –anemoneprojectors– 08:37, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

@AnemoneProjectors: I just see it as another non-needed piece for the infobox. Infobox is supposed to have an over-all scale of information. And Infobox2 defeated that purpose with its extra headlines and unneeded bars. That's just my opinion to things. No need to get offensive or defensive about it. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 14:49, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Infobox2 had one bar (or headline if you choose to call it that) that this template didn't have. It doesn't take away any information, and in my opinion it doesn't cause any clutter, but makes it neater. I don't know what I've said to offend you but if I've been offensive I'm sorry. I don't want to get off topic but I don't see a problem with defending my opinion either. –anemoneprojectors– 15:14, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

@SoapFan12: I can't see a question in your comments - are you asking me why I brought this up? If you "don't give a damn about it", why even comment? –anemoneprojectors– 08:37, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

@AnemoneProjectors: Never mind since I see you have no interest on answering my question.  — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 09:56, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

@SoapFan12: You didn't ask a question. If you ask me a question, I'll answer it. –anemoneprojectors– 10:27, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Livelikemusic, there absolutely is no need for the extra bar. The box shouldn't be chopped up into many different sections, when it doesn't have to be.Caringtype1 (talk) 22:01, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Obviously I had to ask because the other infobox had it, and it was merged here. I guess that the articles without the bar were fine before the merge, so the ones that had the bar will be fine too. It's not really that important (in fact I'm getting used to the change already), but as I said, I had to ask. –anemoneprojectors– 12:53, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I actually think the bar is basic house keeping. It was included for consistency. The first image is boxed off. No harm in the second one being boxed off. It makes perfect sense to me.Rain the 1 23:47, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I do agree with you actually Rain. Just because I'm getting used to something not being there doesn't mean I wouldn't like to see it back. Some people just don't like change I think. It could always be made optional, only used in the articles that used infobox2. As I said, I wanted as little disruption to the look of pages as possible. –anemoneprojectors– 09:35, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Home/residence

I think these fields should be removed. Where a character lives is in-universe information, non-defining, devoid of context or meaning to anyone but fans, and generally difficult to reference, and the infobox should contain as little in-universe information as possible. Characters in soaps have a tendency to move around a lot, but this is usually used purely to state where a character is located in the lastest episode that was broadcast, or where they are said to have moved to if they left the show. For example, Ken Barlow's location says he lives in Canada, but he doesn't live in Canada in any of the episodes he has appeared in because Coronation Street is not set in Canada. Fatboy has lived in at least six locations during his time in EastEnders. When Lucas Johnson was taken into police custody, his home was immediately changed to "police custody", which is ridiculous. The infobox should summarise a character's entire time in a programme, so if it was to include characters' homes, it should list every place they've lived in - thus cluttering up the infobox considerably. EastEnders articles already have "home" removed from the infobox since June 2011 following a discussion for all these same reasons. Important moves should be mentioned in the prose. –anemoneprojectors– 16:28, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I believe this parameter came into being when {{Infobox EastEnders character}} was merged into/replaced with this infobox, as I believe addresses/homes were, at that time, considered important because of the neighborhood focus of the series. If consensus has nullified that, then I totally agree that the parameter should go, it does encourage in-universe nonsense.— TAnthony^Talk 17:59, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

{{Infobox EastEnders character}} hasn't been in use since 2010, when it was merged to {{infobox soap character 2}} with various other UK and Australian soap character infoboxes that all used "home" as well. But no, this template did use "residence" before {{infobox soap character 2}} was merged here - that template used "home" so "home" was added in the merge. Some U.S. soap characters do use this - I just found Liza Colby as an example. But glad you agree. –anemoneprojectors– 01:11, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Ha! I created this template in 2007 by customizing {{Infobox character}} to our needs and adding the collapsible "Relationships" section, and I was SURE I never would have kept a "Residence" parameter in there ... but I just checked and looks like I did ;) The EastEnders discussion I'm thinking of must have been at some point when removing the parameter was discussed. Anyway, yes, I agree it's unnecessary! — TAnthony^Talk 01:29, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Yay! Does anyone else agree? –anemoneprojectors– 13:44, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I personally am not a fan of this field, especially since it could go in ways of being fancruft. So if it's taken out, I would not be upset in the least. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 19:24, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you, it's impossible to keep it factual as people move around etc. Although, whilst we are here - I'd really like to take the time to wonder how I could go about setting up another debate about the removal of DOB/DOD's from these infoboxes. I know people stated that they were "trivia" but I think their removal really was a big mistake. Alex250P (talk)

I think it should be removed. I do not think it is essential in the infobox. It is in-universe. It is the type of thing you would expect to see on a factfile card or featured on the soap opera official website character bios section. I say remove it. Plus there is nothing more annoying lately than having to monitor it - half of the characters swap homes every other week.. tedious.Rain the 1 23:44, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Date of Births/Deaths

I noticed the template was changed, and the places to put death dates and birthdates were removed. I'd really like to know why. But, if they were removed because people constanly changed it, I understand. I think something else could be done instead of removing it altogether. --Nk3play2 ^{my buzz} 02:16, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

With you on this one, dude. Some idiots thought that it was "trivia". I think age is important especially in many cases. I want it put back. Infobox is for info. DOB is info, --Leslie Roak (talk) 16:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

As noted in the edit summary, consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#Age fields in fictional character infoboxes has started this movement in all fictional character infoboxes (and many have had age-related parameters removed awhile ago). Give me article examples and I can help you find ways to add this information in a logical and non-trivial way to the article text. There have been many discussions about this, and in most cases the "ages" are a result of original research using often conflicting information. Thanks.— TAnthony^Talk 18:12, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The above-referenced discussion at WP:TV has been archived to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Archive 11#Age fields in fictional character infoboxes.— TAnthony^Talk 22:00, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

There are many cases that the day of birth of a character has changed to refelect actor's age. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

This has annoyed me as well. Date of birth should be included. Just because there is contradictory info sometimes (perhaps because the producers don't know themselves!) doesn't mean it should be blanket removed. What bunch of idiots came up with that?! So what if people are changing it, people change things all the time. How do you view the age if the field has been removed? Because presumably, the information, is or was still there. Is the only way to search through previous archived versions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.25.68.87 (talk) 22:06, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

An infobox is intended as a quick summary of notable information about an article's topic, and consensus has determined in general terms the birth dates and ages of fictional characters should not be included in infoboxes. If sourced birthdate information for a particular is found to be notable, it can be incorporated into the article text as appropriate. Also please do not use inflammatory language (calling editors "idiots") on talk pages or in edit summaries. Thanks. — TAnthony^Talk 18:06, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for reply. And your point is taken, however I only said idiots as another person used the same word a few lines above. Please could you direct me to the discussion where the consensus was reached that DOB should not be included. Surely something should not be removed unless it is detrimental somehow to have it there. I fail to see how including it could be detrimental. You can just click the ( ) sign to see more so it doesn't have to be visible otherwise so that negates the clutter argument as far as I can see. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.25.68.87 (talk) 03:43, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Temporary portrayals / temp. recasts / how many portrayers should be listed?

There seems to be debate over whether temporary or day-portrayals of recasts of roles should be included in the infobox under the Portrayer parameter (ex. Taylor Hayes, Brooke Logan, Katherine Chancellor) and whether all portrayals should be listed, or only those notable to the notability of the character. How should these situations be handled? livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 19:34, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that temporary recasts should be included in the infobox at all unless they are notable and have been well documented as backed up by sources. Like in the Taylor Hayes (The Bold and the Beautiful) article, I would prefer to have the temp. recast removed, considering there is nothing on her portrayal, and having her in the info-box could falsely imply anything and seems like useless information. And same with Katherine Chancellor, the role was portrayed by Jeanne Cooper and that's really all people would be looking for under "Portrayed by". The infobox should be as short of an overview as possible and without clutter. Temporary recasts (apart from those that are notable) should just be noted in the casting section. When these names are listed in the infobox but there is nothing to build upon this in the article itself, it looks pointless and adds clutter imo. — Arre 20:59, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

When using wikipedia, the infobox is usually the first thing people look at. A lot of times, the body of the article goes unread unless something from the infobox prompts one to search out an explanation for something. Case in point: Taylor Hayes. If I had never been to wikipedia's page for her before and the infobox simply said, "Hunter Tylo," I would probably just move on to another page and be done with it. Seeing, "Sherilyn Wolter," would cause me to stop and read the body of the article to find out why someone else played the part (especially for such a short time). Was Tylo in a contract dispute? Maternity leave? Fired and then re-hired due to fan protests? Or (which we know)... just sick with a cold? Whatever the reason, the casting section would have gone unread if "Sherilyn Wolter (1990)" wasn't displayed there. In case of child actors, yes: they should be in the infobox because it's much cleaner to simply see a bunch of kids names on the right then have to read a paragraph of, "was first played by sets of twins. Then played by sets of twins. Then played by Tommy. Then played by Billy. Etc..." It makes more sense to simply have a plainlist layout in the infobox of:

{{Pair of twins
Pair of twins
Tommy
Billy}}."Cebr1979 (talk) 01:43, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Cebr1979, as a fan of trivia I agree with your thinking, but your idea of what should be in the infobox directly contradicts WP convention and practice, which is basically to keep infoboxes streamlined and uncluttered. They are meant to be a quick overview of notable information, not an abbreviated summary of all information. I'm not super familiar with the Taylor Hayes example, but I do know that Hunter Tylo played the character for a million years. In that case the Sherilyn Wolter performance might be notable enough for the infobox depending on the reasoning given in the text of the article; probably yes if Tylo was out having a baby or in a contract dispute, probably no if she had strep throat for three days. Infant twins and child actors who don't really talk a lot are just clutter in an infobox. The body of the article is where we have room to explain that 2 sets of infant twins played the character and then the character was aged to 5, etc etc. A list of toddlers' names does no good (unless perhaps one of them grew up to be Hayden Panettiere). We can look at these things on a case by case basis but in general we can't make it common practice to put every bit of trivia someone might find interesting in the infobox.— TAnthony^Talk 02:05, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

TAnthony, you realise the point of this consensus talk is to (possibly) change the thinking behind the infobox?Cebr1979 (talk) 02:51, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but I'm saying that outside of this WikiProject, consensus is against your argument, and I don't see any reason why we should diverge.— TAnthony^Talk 02:55, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

"Outside of this WikiProject" is irrelevant and need not be mentioned. Within, there are others that agree with me and they have been doing so for years now even. I'm getting from your responses that you don't want things changed but, why not let others weigh in rather than talking as though you've read the majority of other user's minds all throughout wikipedia.Cebr1979 (talk) 03:10, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Just because we have our own Wikiproject doesn't mean we can ignore the MOS or other general WP guidelines. And what is considered prudent across the entire Wiki should be at least somewhat reflected here. I can speak to "general consensus" as much as you can talk about the "others" that have been agreeing with you for years, and other editors can decide who and what to believe. I don't know anything about you or your history, but I will tell you that I've been editing soap articles for many many years and I have seen all kinds of editors come through here. But the most notable difference between soap editors and editors for other fictional characters has always been the increased fervor over exhaustive plot and, of course, trivia. I get it, I'm a fan too and I love the details. But we have to remind ourselves that our articles are part of a larger body of work. We can add all the junk we want at other wikis but here we need to be a little more serious about it. There was a time several years ago when a lot of soap articles were being deleted and redirected because of all the trivial lists and such they contained, and we've done a great job keeping many articles clean and well cited. Before I added the collapsible relationship section to this infobox, articles were under attack from non-soap editors who thought big lists of relatives were trivia (which they sort of are, but ...) Try to think of the big picture, we're only talking about listing portrayers but it's a slippery slope that ends up making us look like amateurs and fanboys.— TAnthony^Talk 03:39, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

We're talking about actors in an infobox. Nothing more. We're supposed to offer a yes or a no. Concerns over how something will or won't "grow" is just drama that makes the conversation exceedingly long and will prevent others from taking the time to read it. If you really, truly want to see diffs showing other editors wanting these changes made and for how long they've wanted it, believe me: I'll take the time and compile them for you! Or, if you want to scare people with bringing up a potential butterfly effect that will cause soap articles to be deleted altogether, we can get into a debate about that too. My suggestion would be: remain on topic and don't offer up unverifiable personal opinions such as how the majority of wikipedia thinks the way you do. That's creating bias.Cebr1979 (talk) 03:47, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

This isn't a vote, it's a discussion, we both know that "yes" or "no" doesn't do any good. Either one of us could collect more "votes" one way or the other but the point here is to discuss pros and cons. I'm sorry you don't like my reasons why I say NO, but I don't think your argument that people won't stop and read the whole article without information you find interesting in the infobox is particularly convincing. Our job is to present information in a sensible, interesting and readable way that follows Wikipedia standards, not keep readers on pages or tailor articles to the interests of certain kinds of readers.

I'm assuming that conflicts over situations like Taylor Hayes have initiated this discussion. In that particular case, it's not super notable that Wolter played the part for a few days when Tylo was sick considering Tylo was in the role for 20 years. The infobox for Live! with Kelly and Michael doesn't list guest hosts. However, in the Taylor Hayes article, I would say that it's not objectionable to keep Wolter listed there because she's the only alternate performer, her name doesn't crowd the box, people may find it interesting and her portrayal has a reference. In the case of Victoria Lord, however, where three actresses are listed who have played the character under contract, noting the two temp recasts and the "young Viki" version would we overkill. Kevin Buchanan has been portrayed by like a dozen actors and listing them all was ridiculous.

If the goal of this discussion is to set a guideline, then it should be that only notable and significant portrayals be listed, and that infants and toddlers (who are essentially props) are almost never notable. This is vague enough to allow editors to argue for including Wolter in the Taylor Hayes infobox, and for removing infant twins from other article infoboxes. Setting a rule strictly one way or the other is unreasonable, unfair to our varied material, and unenforceable. But for that to work we have to sometimes agree to disagree and compromise in certain articles.15:58, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm inclined to side with Arre and TAnthony on this case; temporary casting and all portrayers shouldn't be included in an infobox; in the case of Taylor, Hunter Tylo is notably the sole portrayer of the character. In the case of Brooke, Katherine Kelly Lang was only recast when she was on maternity leave from the series; she is the sole main actress in the role, Same goes for Jeanne Cooper in the role of Katherine Chancellor. The trivial details should be excluded from an infobox, which is meant to provide a concise over-all summary; if a visitor wants explicit detail, that's when they look into the body of the paragraph. The infobox should remain void of clutter, and temporary castings can be cluttering, and listing every portrayer under the sun, as well, is cluttering. Same applies for child actors; while I understand the logic behind including them, in the long-run, a child actor is not the most notable in the characters' long-term history, given soap opera's need to SORAS'ing characters in a short-given period of time, due to lack of child storylines in the medium. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 17:44, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

@Cebr1979: Your reasoning as to why temporary portrayals should be included using Sherilyn Wolter in the Taylor Hayes article... I don't understand. You can't assume that people only read casting sections because of seeing that there was an additional actor? What about for characters like Pauline Fowler among hundreds of others; people would still seek information on how the sole actor was hired. Additionally, the information you believe people will be seeking by seeing "Sherilyn Wolter" in the infobox is not even there, because there is barely anything verifying her portrayal in terms of sources. Livelikemusic summed up above what I've been trying to explain to you for a while. Child actors too (I thought this was cleared up a while ago?) shouldn't be noted unless they are notable in some way. It is generally just trivial/clutter. — Arre 22:51, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I thought by the time I came back from my vacation this discussion would have progressed but, it hasn't. That's weird.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cebr1979 (talk • contribs) 07:40, March 13, 2015

It was stalled, in theory, because a majority of three editors agree with one format for doing it, and one does not. Plus, most don't follow the infobox for the soap character, as most already are aware of the unspoken consensus and belief on what we're discussing. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 02:47, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Image captions for portrayers

The more common use of caption of "Portrayer as Character Name" as the template at Soap Project states, however, some users are now wishing to implement a brand new way of listing it, as "Portrayer currently portrays Character", and that they wish to include a punctuation mark at the end of the caption. Are we able to come to some kind of common use consensus on the formal way of listing the caption to avoid edit-wars between users? I'll use the character of Brad Willis.

Use in template currently

Kip Gamblin as Brad Willis

Newly used use (by some newly registered members)

Kip Gamblin currently portrays Brad Willis.

OR

Kip Gamblin as Brad Willis.

Which way do we wish to keep the format? Discuss below! livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 17:20, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I tend to think no caption is necessary if only one actor has played that character, but people seem to insist on a caption. Also I often see "Character as portrayed by actor", as that clarifies that the picture is of a character, but it's usually replaced by "Actor as character". Both are usually followed by the year the image was taken in parentheses. These are in UK soaps though - I don't look at the U.S. ones. I'm not sure I have a preference. –anemoneprojectors– 15:46, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm talking more on multiple-actor portrayals; captions definitely shouldn't be required for a one-person portrayal, or a more commonly recognized portrayal. As for the years, the template never asked for the year of the caption, etc. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 16:37, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Well in the case of multiple actors, I prefer "portrayer as character". You can see who's the most recent from the list of portrayers in the infobox. –anemoneprojectors– 16:46, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly! Plus, it's been the common practice of the infoboxes currently. Hopefully more put in their two-cents. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 17:16, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I think I also prefer "actor/actress as character". - JuneGloom Talk 17:21, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

@JuneGloom07: With or without punctuation at the end? livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 17:22, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Without I think. - JuneGloom Talk 17:28, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I like "Actor as Character" and dislike any other way of doing it because if a caption is needed - keep it simple. As AP mentioned, there is no need to add a caption if only one actor has portrayed the character. It is fairly obvious what the image is. Plus the layout usually has "Name - Soap Character - Image - Played by Actor" in sequence so it aleady does the job of a caption. Which is why I always remove them and call them redundant and useless.Rain the 1 23:42, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

"Actor as character" should have no punctuation as an image caption, whereas "Actor currently portrays character." should because it's a full sentence, whereas the other is just describing the image, see WP:CAPFRAG. –anemoneprojectors– 17:39, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

@AnemoneProjectors:It's been argued that including a punctuation is a must because it is "proper grammar". Would you care to elaborate as to why it isn't, for the sake of arguments case? livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 00:14, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

It's already in the manual of style, so no need to elaborate. The guildelines are in place. –anemoneprojectors– 08:16, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

@AnemoneProjectors: Excellent! I knew it was somewhere, just couldn't find it! livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 17:07, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

But I already said it before you asked me to elaborate lol –anemoneprojectors– 08:56, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Only a complete sentence requires punctuation, a phrase does not. In general I prefer the "Actor as Character" approach. In anything infobox-related, we should always strive to be clean and concise, and extra, unnecessary words and qualifiers just hinder readability and potentially make the box unwieldy. I can see how someone might think that some form of "So-and-so currently portrays Miss Marple" would help clarify things, but dates should already be clear in the inbox. The examples and guidelines at Wikipedia:WikiProject Soap Operas#Templates and Wikipedia:WikiProject Soap Operas##Guidelines and recommendations are very thorough and we should refer new editors to those areas whenever these kinds of things arise.— TAnthony^Talk 01:23, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

That was attempted, hence why this discussion was opened to create a clear and concise consensus. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 01:31, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

So is this somewhat closed, and decided upon, or is more discussion needed for this? As some editors are still making said-changes that violate WP:MOS and this discussion. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 16:55, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I updated the template documentation to include caption formatting per the manual of style and this discussion. You can refer editors to Template:Infobox soap character/doc#Formatting when you correct/revert. Do you think some of the editors you've been dealing with will still ignore the guidelines? — TAnthony^Talk 18:13, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

@TAnthony: One-hundred and ten percent yes. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 19:02, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Can you point out specific articles/edits/editors where this has come up recently? I'm curious if there have been any "reasons" given for the different format or if it's editor preference. Maybe addressing editors directly in a collaborative way can lead to something, I'm willing to try. The problem is, we have the MOS on our side on the punctuation issue, but the actual caption format is our own interpretation of "succinctness." Obviously as a Project we have established reasonable conventions and guidelines to standardize our articles, and it helps that most soap character articles do follow our guideline, but in the end it's not 100% enforceable.— TAnthony^Talk 20:03, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

@TAnthony: Just take a look at the pages for Kelly Andrews and Summer Newman. I'd link to specific editors, I'm not contacting and/or interacting with them at all, due to edit conflicts. Would also appreciate not being linked with them, as well! livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 20:06, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

It's all a moot point, really. Livelikemusic has been told by a site admin to stop following my edits and, if he really, really considers it a big deal, he has to take it to that article's talk page! Not start a conversation without me somewhere else... THAT article's talk page.

I have not "changed any format." There is, nor has their ever been, any format to be changed. There is only personal preference and noone's is better than anyone else's. Whether or not I use punctuation or state tjat an actress is current, there is nothing to say that I can't do either and a whole conversation about it is trivial.Cebr1979 (talk) 22:50, 25 July 2014 Reverting my edit yesterday was another example of something being done that was specifically said to NOT be done (by a site admin).Cebr1979 (talk) 22:52, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Cebr1979. The Soaps WikiProject set up guidelines several years ago and the specific caption format that livelikemusic supports has been part of the standard example for as long as I can remember. A primary goal of any WikiProject is to standardize the format, content and appearance of its articles, all in the name of improvement, and as far as I know the majority of soap-related articles follow that example. Plus, the consensus of this discussion has been that the Project's current example is preferred. That said, you are certainly correct that your preference on the matter is just as valid as anyone else's, and in the specific (and minor) case of captions, to my knowledge no Wikipedia policy is being violated either way.

It's obvious that the two of you have disagreed on this issue, though I haven't looked at any of the articles, edit summaries or talk pages involved. Edit warring is bad bad bad, but I hope that you have both been trying your best to compromise and otherwise act in as collaborative a manner as possible. Cebr1979, the wording of your comment above gives me the impression you may feel that once you've decided to change a caption, no one should have the right to revert it. Livelikemusic, I get the impression that you may be a little too enthusiastic about keeping caption formats consistent. It seems silly to have a talk page discussion every time someone disagrees with a caption, but if editors with differing opinions on the topic are editing the same articles, there need to be compromises. In this case, you both should be willing to "let it go" on certain articles.— TAnthony^Talk 00:08, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Caption linking one-person portrayals

A) There seems to be quite a bit disruption over whether or not captions should be linking to portrayer(s) and captions for one-primary portrayals. While {{Infobox soap character}} refers here that captions should be including link to performer, many believe linking would be redundant, as actor(s) for the primary part are linked in the "Portrayer" parameter; as such, wouldn't linking of actors in captions violate the website's policy on overlinking.

B) There is also question whether one-person portrayals or one-primary portrayals should include captions (ex. Mariah Copeland); should one-person portrayals or one-primary portrayals include captions? Wouldn't captions prove to be redundant? Or should we exclude those captions, as if only one actor / actress is known, shouldn't it be well aware that the portrayer listed is that in the infobox image? livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 19:30, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Linking to the performer in the caption does seem pretty useless, given the performer will already be linked in the lead usually and in the "Portrayed by" parameter. Linking the actor names in the captions is unneeded and does result in WP:OVERLINK. Roles that have been played by only one actor should not have captions, that is redundant, unless there is an important detail about the image that should be noted IMO. Honestly, I believed that this was somewhat established but one editor keeps re-adding them. — Arre 20:46, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you: if only one person portrayed the role, why bother with a caption and, even if more than person portrayed the role and a caption is needed, why not link the actor in the "Portrayed by" section rather than the photo caption? It looks better and is much cleaner. It'll be nice when this is agreed upon and established so one user can quit doing everything their own personal way.Cebr1979 (talk) 01:38, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I also agree, the performer need only be linked once (portrayer parameter) and need not even be named in a caption at all if there is only one performer.— TAnthony^Talk 03:05, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I believe it is safe to say we're in agreement that one-person portrayal should not be captioned? Is that a safe result to say based on the discussion so far? livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 17:37, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, is it safe to say we're in agreement that one-person portrayals do not require captioning? livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 02:53, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

"Birth name" parameter suggestion

I've been thinking about this for a while now. Can we add a "birth name" parameter to the infoxbox? Changing one's name in a soap is such a common theme that I think it would be just as useful if not even more useful then the alias parameter. Editors wouldn't have to resort to including the birth name in a parentheses at the beginning of the article which has always bothered me. --Nk3play2 ^{my buzz} 22:29, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

But characters aren't born, they're created by production teams or writers, or whoever (hence no date of birth given in the infobox), so they don't have a "birth name". I use the alias parameter for all names a character has been credited by, so if they have used a different name in the show, that's probably the best place for it. For example, Rebecca Fowler in EastEnders was originally called Chloe Jackson. Though Wikipedia describes an alias as a pseudonym, so maybe "alias" should be changed to "other names". –anemoneprojectors– 09:00, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I was never happy with using the "alias" field for married and birth names, as it's not right. Changing your surname upon marriage is not an alias. So an "other names" field would be more appropriate. But the alias field needs to be kept as some character do have aliases too, like Lucas Fitzgerald, who exhibited his photography work under a different name. - JuneGloom07 Talk 13:14, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

AnemoneProjectors' suggestion is great, "other names" is a perfect catchall for all these situations, including what we'd otherwise call aliases, pen names, etc.— TAnthony^Talk 14:02, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I think we can just change the word "Aliases" in the template to "Other names", so articles don't need to be changed from "alias=" to "othernames=". Even in the case of Lucas Fitzgerald, it works. If it needs clarification, just do what we've done with Janine Butcher, who has married names and a pseudonym. –anemoneprojectors– 14:14, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

As for characters not actually being born, I don't see why it matters. They are born in the fictional universe; stating that they are not born is like stating that they don't actually have family, an alias, and so on. If you look at Template:Infobox character, you can see that it lists "Full name," "Nickname(s)" and "Aliases." I think that Template:Infobox soap character used to have a birth field, but it was removed; I'm no longer sure. I don't feel strongly on the matter either way. Flyer22 (talk) 14:15, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

To echo AnemoneProjectors, characters are not born, they are created. The "Alias" parameter should also be removed, and adding a "Birth Name" parameter, to me, is mere fancruft. Names other than the WP:COMMONNAME, I feel, should be avoided at all costs. Especially if the character has an endless ring of marriages. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 15:11, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

With long-running characters, the WP:COMMONNAME can change over time. I think it's helpful to include all credited names, even for someone like Gail McIntyre who's been married about 75 times! Different readers may know her by different names. But they should be "other names", not "aliases". –anemoneprojectors– 14:16, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Ok then, I think a "other names" parameter can replace the alias parameter and it would work perfectly. --Nk3play2 ^{my buzz} 17:36, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

If there's consensus to do so, I can change this. –anemoneprojectors– 08:30, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Well I Approve of that.--Nk3play2 ^{my buzz} 23:05, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

There have been no objections, so I'll make the change. –anemoneprojectors– 08:21, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Romances & Nicknames

These must have been parameters included in the template long ago that have since been removed (which I think is a good thing). I just want to make sure it is okay to remove this info from articles that still have it.Cebr1979 (talk) 10:46, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

There is an "alias" parameter that shows up as "other names", however, I don't think nicknames should be included there. Romances will have been removed as there can potentially be dozens so would have cluttered the infoboxes way too much. Go ahead and remove the defunct parameters if they are still in use in articles, as it doesn't make a difference to the article as it looks (the same goes for years of birth and death). –anemoneprojectors– 11:01, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Alias parameter

Do we need this? Or, at the very least, could we not refine the description somewhat? I know characters use other names at times and, for characters like Leslie Michaelson, John Black, Victor Newman, Hope Williams Brady, etc... it would be useful to note Valerie Rogan, Roman Brady, Christian Miller, and Princess Gina Von Amberg, respectively... BUT: every female character's married name should be just plain common sense and, in the case of a character like Chloe Mitchell, let's face it guys: it's just not notable to state in the infobox that she lied and said her name was Chelsea Lawson for one episode of the character's entire existence! In my time editing here, all I ever hear from other editors is "cluttering the infobox" and... how is all of this not an example of exactly that?Cebr1979 (talk) 19:59, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I propose bringing back the "Birth name" parameter and getting rid of the "Alias/Other names" one altogether and moving the "Birth name" parameter into the collapsible field which is basically done in an in-universe style anyways.Cebr1979 (talk) 20:04, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Or... What I now think would be even better: simply having the pagename in the lead and moving the maiden/married names to the storylines section. It's just that a character like Katherine Chancellor was never previously known as "Katherine Shepherd." As of the character's first appearance, she was known as Katherine Chancellor. "Previously" is only in-universe, not real-world.Cebr1979 (talk) 03:37, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Conversation moved/merged here.Cebr1979 (talk) 03:48, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

You don't seem to have mentioned this discussion there, that's just about using "née" in the lead, not about the infobox parameters. Anyway, my opnion is that a "birth name" paramater should not be used, because characters are not born, they are created by a team or writers. That's why we have "other names" - it's used for other names that a character has had during their time in the programme, be they married names, name changes, false identities, or names widely used by the media. I understand British and American soap operas are actually completely different though - UK (and Austrlian) ones are more realistic, whereas from what I can gather, US ones can be quite far fetched. Is that fair to say? So coming up with solutions that work for both, using the same template, could be quite tricky. However, I do agree that a one episode false name isn't notable and doesn't need to be included. –anemoneprojectors– 13:10, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Half-siblings feature

I just reverted an IP on this and similar changes. Why do we have a siblings and half-siblings feature? The implication is that the half-siblings aren't family as much as the full siblings are. In the case of Todd Manning and his siblings, the "half" part usually was not emphasized in the show. Victoria Lord is simply his sister. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:11, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Again, it goes into the over-crowding of the infobox, which defies its purpose. Plus, like in real-world situations, not all half-siblings are considered any less a sibling as one with both a paternal and material biological connection. livelikemusic talk! 23:22, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Is the suggestion that half siblings and full siblings should be listed together for all soap opera characters? anemoneprojectors 23:35, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

That's the way we used to do it, like the version I reverted to at the Todd Manning article. But we sometimes get people adding "half-brother," "half-sister" or "half-sibling" in parentheses when we do that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:04, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Similar goes for cousins, and probably other listings as well. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:05, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Hmm. Isn't it easier to keep half siblings separate than to keep having to remove parentheses? I just wonder if someone unfamiliar with a subject might see someone like Lucy Beale having four siblings and then looking at those siblings and wondering why Bobby Beale isn't listed as as sibling of Steven Beale - when in fact it's because Bobby and Steven are half siblings to Lucy but not related to each other. Also, having them separate doesn't take up any extra space, and removing the half sibling parameters would create loads of work across many articles (I guess a tracking category would be necessary). anemoneprojectors 12:07, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Also, I just noticed that the "halfsiblings" parameter doesn't actually exist. So if an infobox doesn't separate family by sex, half-siblings will always be grouped with full siblings. I hope it's ok that I just hyphenated half-brothers and half-sisters, as I noticed they are hyphenated in the sibling article (though I don't think they used to be). anemoneprojectors 09:38, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Removing the parenthetical "half-brother," "half-sister" or "half-sibling" etc. is not something we've had to do much in recent years.

After coming from the Victoria Lord article, I'm seeing that the aforementioned IP might be Nk3play2. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:32, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

livelikemusic, after this, I am very close to seeking that these extra fields are removed. Really, why do we need all those extra family fields? Look at all of those extra family fields at Template:Infobox soap character. That is excessive. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:50, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

For the record, as seen here (followup edit here), Nk3play2 has stated that he is not the IP. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:43, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

@Flyer22 Reborn: For me, it would be worth removing the extra parameters. It's making infoboxes far too specific, which they should not be. And the edit-warring is becoming quite tiresome. As for whether or not that IP is said-user, I'm attempting to assume good-faith, but given their editing pattern history, it's hard for me to believe in such. Could be a general coincidence, but it still does not keep a level-head about these extra parameters, which I do believe only complicate and clutter the infobox. livelikemusic talk! 13:39, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

What about the points I made? Also, removing these fields could affect hundreds of articles. If an IP is causing a problem on a particular article, it would be better to block the user or have the article semi-protected. Removing the fields probably won't stop the edits because people won't realise what has changed - birth and death dates and romances still get added all the time even though those fields don't exist. Just revert, warn, and block disruptive editors. anemoneprojectors 16:06, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

As I've noted before, the parameters in this template have increased significantly since its original incarnation, and I think back then consensus was pretty much against individual parameters for everything. But all of you have really improved the quality of WP:SOAPS articles over the years and I've come to believe that the improvements to the template make sense for the most part. I mean, Victoria Lord's infobox is going to be a foot long when fully expanded no matter what we do LOL. But a half-sister parameter does look better and less cluttered than a parenthetical after the name. And even though I would argue against half- and step- parameters in a real-world bio infobox, in the specific genre of soap opera it seems important to designate these things to minimize the inherent confusion created by 50 years of storylines.— TAnthony^Talk 16:39, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi,

I think the parameter should stay. If it's reduced to just brothers, sisters and siblings, then if you have a character with maternal and paternal half-siblings, won't people just be tempted to the add them to each others and clutter the infobox up with notes next to it. It's fine the way it is, makes it easier to read and establishes how a character is connected to another.

Grangehilllover (talk) 18:01, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the comments from additional editors above, were editors alerted to this discussion? Well, it's expected that TAnthony would have this page watchlisted, but I haven't seen Grangehilllover before.

AnemoneProjectors, I did reply to you above. As for reverting and blocking editors cluttering the infoboxes, that matter can be categorized as a content dispute, and editors usually are not blocked solely for a content dispute. Disruptive behavior has to be included for a block. In the case of my issue with the aforementioned IP, the IP is being disruptive because I have objected to the changes and have attempted to discuss the matter here, while the IP simply keeps making the changes without discussion. Furthermore, since the Todd Manning article is a WP:FA, it is subject to more care and discussion when editing and when disputing changes. Because the infobox has these fields, though, it can be argued that they can be validly used.

I simply do not see the benefit of having a field such as "Brother" and "Half brother." I mean, Todd is both Viki's brother and half brother. I would feel better if the fields stated, for example, "Full brother" and "Half brother," but the term full brother seems awkward and is not as common, and it would still be unnecessary clutter in this particular case. If the half-sibling or half-cousin, or similar, feature is needed in specific cases, then okay. But using them when they are not needed, and having them forced on articles? That's the issue. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:56, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Are certain people only allowed to speak about this stuff?Sorry if so, but but I do edit soap pages nearly every day and look around. I'll keep out then. Opinion gone.

Grangehilllover (talk) 20:06, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

@Grangehilllover: I've restored your comments, per Flyer's reply.— TAnthony^Talk 20:19, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I was not trying to state that only certain people are allowed to "speak about this stuff." Because you and TAnthony showed up to weigh in, I was simply wondering if editors had been alerted to this discussion. Because I had not seen you around before, I was wondering how you became aware of this discussion. There was no need to remove your opinion.

On a side note, I alerted anyone who might be watching the Todd Manning article to this discussion. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:17, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I think I have to agree with TAnthony. I really hate the addition of notes and parentheticals in the ibox, and the individual half-sibling/sister/brother parameters do help to eliminate that. They also make the ibox look a lot less cluttered and confusing. I don't think they suggest that a half-sibling means any less to a character than a full sibling. As for how I ended up here, AP should know by now that I stalk his contribs daily. ;) - JuneGloom07 Talk 21:57, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I think quite a few UK soap editors regularly stalk my contributions. Sometimes I don't always want this, but it's not something I can control. Personally I would encourage all soap editors to have this template on their watchlist and to check any talk page discussions. anemoneprojectors 22:34, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) JuneGloom07, I recognize you regardless of how you found this discussion, LOL. Not having the parentheticals is a benefit, but it's the main benefit I see. Unless noting that the siblings are half-siblings is significant to understanding the character article, I don't see why we should note that so and so is the character's half-sibling. Stating "sibling" and "half-sibling" is, to me, signaling that one is more of a sibling than the other. It's like a person stating, "This is my half-sister." Why not just state "This is my sister." unless you, for some reason, think that it's important for people to know that this person is not fully biologically related to you? I don't see much of a problem with the other listings, except for any unnecessary clutter they may cause. If I see "half cousin" and the like, then that is going overboard. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:46, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, in real life we would not be necessarily assigning importance to siblings based on how related to us they are, but in the convoluted storylines and ways these characters can be connected, this clarification if often helpful. It's not, to me, at all about full vs. half but more about whose parents are whose.— TAnthony^Talk 23:28, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

But "Sister" and "Half-sister" don't really tell us who the parents are, and the article's text is for such clarifications if they are needed. What are your and others' thoughts on "full" being added, so that the infobox reads as "Full sister" and "Half-sister," and similar? "Sister" and "Half-sister" (and similar) is silly to me.

And whether or not we keep all these listings or not, I don't like the listings being forced on articles. I see that the "half" field is used for the UK articles, but it's only recently that it started to be used for the American articles. See this edit, for example. I changed the setup back in January. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:05, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Well unfortunately we probably need to decide one way or the other, or neither way is truly enforceable. You dislike them and will keep them out of OLTL articles as long as you're watching them, someone else will keep them in Corry articles or whatever, but if they are just alternatives, how can you really stop someone from insisting that the OLTL articles need them? Consensus per show? Obviously we all have our pet articles and shows and I'm guessing that everyone in this discussion is keeping their own articles of interest consistent. I'm just not sure that essentially allowing workarounds is going to play out long-term.— TAnthony^Talk 00:22, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Oh and just curious: In your Victoria Lord example, why are there "sons" and "daughters" but not "brothers" and "sisters" (the article uses "siblings"). Again, I have always been pro-"siblings", "children", and "grandparents" rather than dividing by sex, but I would expect consistency. The template probably gives too many options/alternatives, but if we're going to allow editors to choose then they should have access to all options; but as it is now there is no enforceable consistency across the Project. I should probably also mention that the non-soap editors that have so carefully honed {{Infobox character}} over time would likely shred ours back down a bit if they ever took a look.— TAnthony^Talk 00:31, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

If we are to keep all of these additional listings, then whether or not to use them should be a case-by-case matter...just like many other things on Wikipedia, including article structure. The issue I see with the "case-by-case" route in this instance, however, is that some One Life to Live articles would use the extra features and others wouldn't. I'm not going to keep up with the edits that Nk3play2 makes, and I don't have many One Life to Live articles on my watchlist. I don't have many soap opera articles on my watchlist. Again, I wouldn't mind "half-sister" and "half-brother" being used if "full sister" and "full brother" were also used. As for the Victoria Lord issue, I don't mind the sex division. That's not a concern of mine. But the sex division can also be argued as unnecessary clutter. In most cases, people have a gendered name. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:45, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Well perhaps we should really be discussing what level of consistency we want across articles. Case-by-case is fine, but I don't see how disputes get adequately settled with so many variables across so many articles. How can you defend the current status of Viki Lord if another editor thinks Tony should be listed as a half-brother? This is a minor issue in the scheme of things but with a free-for-all of parameters we're sort of encouraging article instability. In my experience, templates are designed to allow for varied content but specific presentation. In other widely-used infobox templates, there are parameters that are optional or may not apply to every article which transcludes the template, but there are not many parameters which are interchangeable in that they merely display the same information differently. And I can think of several cases where interchangeable parameters (as well as derivative templates) were consolidated, because simplification is the trend. Obviously I see why this Project needs more family parameters than {{Infobox character}}, but this one has also sort of become a catchall for every conceivable (reasonable) family parameter because our most active, dedicated and longterm editors don't really agree on their use.— TAnthony^Talk 03:00, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

I suggested that we change the template so that "half-sibling" has a "full sibling" counterpart. Noting that Todd and Viki are half-siblings is not my issue. They are indeed half-siblings, which is clear by reading their articles. Implying that one character is a brother while the other falls into the category of half-brother, for example, is my issue. They are both brothers to the character; so why should the full sibling simply be called "brother", as though his status as "brother" is more valid than the half-sibling's? That's why I started this section. Do I think we should have all of the extra fields/parameters? Not really, but those extras don't bother me much. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:27, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, I think the "full" is implied in "brother", I think people commonly say "half-sister" but not "full sister". My opinion.— TAnthony^Talk 03:52, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

For the record, I support the use of half-, but on a case-by-case basis per editor preference. I just think that improved usage recommendations need to be conceived and incorporated into our guidelines. This discussion seems to involve several of the current most active and assertive editors in the Project; for now this is all agreeable, and disruptive but well-meaning newcomers can be corrected without much fuss, but this is not sustainable.— TAnthony^Talk 18:27, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

"Full" being implied by "brother" is my issue. The current setup has it so that a full brother is simply called "brother" while the other is qualified with "half." This setup makes it seem like one is more so a brother than the other. I don't see how anyone couldn't get that implication. Both are brothers; so I disagree with singling out half-siblings with "half" in the infobox unless necessary. It was rare for Viki to think of Todd as her half-brother; in the beginning, she was more likely to note "half" because of who Todd was (his dark past) and because she didn't know him well. But he soon simply became "brother" and she didn't think of him as any less of her brother because they are half-siblings. Stating "full brother" and "half-brother" in the infobox is more neutral, in my opinion. But I'm not going to press this issue since it seems that no one except livelikemusic and myself are looking to amend the infobox. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:27, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Well technically Meredith is 50% more of a sister to Viki than Tina is LOL. I totally see your point though, and it probably is just personal preference on all of our parts. But then what is your take on step- and adoptive? By your reasoning, step-siblings should also be considered equal to biological ones.— TAnthony^Talk 21:46, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

The case for step-siblings and adoptive siblings is more complicated for soap operas, since it's not unusual for step-siblings and adoptive siblings on soap operas to hate one another or be incestuous with one another. This happens more commonly with step-siblings and adoptive siblings than it does with full or half-siblings. Also on soap operas, it's often that the characters aren't step-siblings for long. In my soap opera viewing experience, the relationships between step-siblings and adoptive sibling tends to be weaker. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:49, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

As noted here (followup note here), I've decided to ignore the edit warring IP on this matter. But don't be surprised if I report the annoying, edit-warring IP in a sock investigation in the future if I continue to see edit warring on the IP's part. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:12, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Full name

I would like to propose adding a Full Name parameter. At Will Horton the opening sentence had the character's full name (and previous names) removed a while ago. I agree the full name in the opening sentence is silly - the character in this instance *is* known to the world today as Will Horton, and unlike real people (of whom there are much more) a full name is minutia. And in the opening sentence of an article, you want to include as much *important* information as possible, so the extraneous is best left out. The full name at Will Horton is now present only in the infobox, along with other names the character has had in the past (which in this case are important - as they are required to access data about the character that was written before 2008). The thing is, the old names fit in the "alias" parameter (which appears as "Other names") just fine - but the character's full name does not, because it is not another name. It is his name - his full name - William Robert Horton. It is incorrect to call it an "other name". Hence I propose the adding of a "Full Name" field. The infobox would be the same size. All that would change is that the information will be correctly labelled. That's a good thing, so I recommend that we do this! Aliveness Cascade (talk) 21:40, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps the advice here will be that the full name *should* be included in the opening sentence, in which case I'll put it back in. Someone was very keen on taking it out though! :-) Aliveness Cascade (talk) 21:54, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Is his full name important? I believe the opening paragraph and "other names" should be for credited names only, unless there is a strong reason to include any other name. I wouldn't like to see the addition of a full name parameter because people will start adding unimportant names to infoboxes. At the moment, all the articles I work on use the full name in the lead and only credited names in the infobox, for example, Kim Fox's full name is Kimberley Harmony Angelica Fox (or Fox-Hubbard after her marriage), but her full name isn't really that important so the infobox only mentions her other credited name of Kim Fox-Hubbard. anemoneprojectors 14:36, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. Is it important? This is about clarity, and that's important. Currently Will Horton begins "Will Horton (also known as Will Roberts) is a ..." and that's clear and simple, and it's a good choice for an opener I think. (Both these names are credit names btw, and are primary information). Alternatively it could begin "William Robert "Will" Horton is a ..." which is messy and undesirable - even though it's standard Wikipedia practice. Worse it could begin "William Robert "Will" Horton (formerly William Reed Roberts) which is complex and unnecessary. So I like the present opener, with the full name William Robert Horton in the infobox. That's simple and clear, and it's that which makes it important. It would be much better if it is labelled Full Name, rather than Other Names. I appreciate the concerns regarding overuse and cluttering. To prevent this I propose in the template guidelines a statement saying that the Full Name parameter should only be used when the article does not open with the full name, and it should only be used for the latest name of the character. Aliveness Cascade (talk) 15:11, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

For me it is a no-brainer. Information should be labelled correctly. Creating a Full Name parameter would make this possible.Aliveness Cascade (talk) 09:41, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

What I am proposing is on option that creates flexibility - so for articles where it is problematic to open with the full name, it can be put in the InfoBox instead. It's a tidy and neat solution. Aliveness Cascade (talk) 09:45, 24 February 2017 (UTC)