Template talk:Infobox character/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

Template-protected edit request on 16 October 2022

Change

Code changes
Line 1: Line 1:
{{main other|{{short description|Fictional character|noreplace}}}} {{main other|{{#if:{{For nowiki||<nowiki>{{#invoke:Is infobox in lead|main|{{{1}}}}}</nowiki>
|[Ii]nfobox character
|[Dd]une character box
|[Ff]irefly Character
|[Gg]eneral CVG character
|[Gg]eneral VG character
|[Ii]nfobox Animanga character
|[Ii]nfobox Anime character
|[Ii]nfobox Avatar: The Last Airbender character
|[Ii]nfobox Character
|[Ii]nfobox Dune character
|[Ii]nfobox James Bond character
|[Ii]nfobox Manga character
|[Ii]nfobox Sea Patrol character
|[Ii]nfobox Shakespearean character
|[Ii]nfobox Simpsons character
|[Ii]nfobox Star Trek character
|[Ii]nfobox Street Fighter character
|[Ii]nfobox Tolkien character
|[Ii]nfobox VG Character
|[Ii]nfobox VG character
|[Ii]nfobox animanga character
|[Ii]nfobox anime character
|[Ii]nfobox biblical character
|[Ii]nfobox cartoon character
|[Ii]nfobox epic character
|[Ii]nfobox fictional character
|[Ii]nfobox manga character
|[Ii]nfobox mythical character
|[Ii]nfobox mythological character
|[Ii]nfobox player
|[Ii]nfobox religious character
|[Ii]nfobox television character
|[Ii]nfobox video game character
|[Jj]ames Bond Character
|[Kk]iller Instinct Character
|[Nn]amco characters
}}|{{Short description|Fictional character|noreplace}}|}}}}
{{Infobox {{Infobox
| bodystyle = border-spacing: 2px 5px; | bodystyle = border-spacing: 2px 5px;

to prevent the short description appearing when the infobox is not in the lead (such as List of characters in the Breaking Bad franchise). The large list is to account for the redirects. Qwerfjkltalk 20:16, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Comment On Template:Infobox soap character, I requested and got it changed to omit a short description for list articles; using similar coding may help? – Meena • 20:45, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
@Meena, this is, as far as I'm aware, the easiest way to fix the problem. Infobox soap character jist checks if the title starts with "List of", which is easier to do. — Qwerfjkltalk 06:12, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
Okay, help me to understand, Qwerfjkl, your code was sandboxed and tested in preview on the Breaking Bad list page, but there was no change, which to me means:
  1. this code doesn't work,
  2. this code only works on future installations of this template
  3. something else on the page generates an auto-short description
If it's 2, then short descriptions would have to be manually removed from all the pages that use this template. Am I missing something? Have you tested this code some other way? P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 23:05, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
@Paine Ellsworth, I'm curious as to how you checked what the short description was from the the preview. (And no, I haven't tested this code, which I probably should.) — Qwerfjkltalk 06:07, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
I began by changing the two ibox templates to the sandbox and previewing. No change. Then I removed the Short description and previewed. The iboxes did not generate a short description, neither the sandbox nor the live template. At that point I considered that this was not a good way to test these edits. So I wondered how would be a good way to test them? Probably right in front of me and I can't see it. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 06:55, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
And no, I haven't tested this code, which I probably should - yes, which should usually be done before making a TPER (though this now a moot point, as I see it has been disabled for now). Primefac (talk) 07:50, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
I think this should be done by simply adding a parameter that suppresses the short description. Nardog (talk) 06:13, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
Would there be a way to suppress the short descriptions that have already been generated? Just wonderin'. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 06:55, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
The use of noreplace already suppresses the generation of the shortdesc from this template if there is a shortdesc template already on the page. The reverse cannot be done (i.e. we cannot suppress the templated shortdesc and replace it with the infobox shortdesc). Primefac (talk) 07:49, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
I mean suppressing the short description that this template generates, not ones generated in other ways. Nardog (talk) 07:51, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
Is that not already done by noreplace? IceWelder [✉] 07:57, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
That's.... what I just said, unless you (Nardog) specifically mean not passing along a shortdesc from this template, noreplace or not. If that's the case, there are probably much easier ways of doing that than the original proposal. Primefac (talk) 08:24, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
??? simply adding a parameter that suppresses [the template from generating] the short description is what I suggested as an alternative to Qwerfjkl's original proposal. Nardog (talk) 08:31, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
I think I either misread or misunderstood at least one of your statements. Primefac (talk) 08:37, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
No, because noreplace prevents the SD from being added only if the article already contains an SD. Nardog (talk) 08:31, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 30 October 2022

Please add Hair_color to Template: Infobox Character page JsjRonnskerAsjn (talk) 00:35, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit template-protected}} template. Nardog (talk) 01:10, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
JsjRonnskerAsjn, I just reverted the changes you made to the documentation regarding this. You are welcome to open a discussion to add this parameter, but I can pretty much guarantee it is too trivial a detail to be accepted for this template. Thanks!— TAnthonyTalk 16:55, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Please enable both "home" and "origin"

Right now only either can show up, forcing to choose between the backstory and the story (let's say Superman can have only had origin place of Krypton OR the residence of New York, not both). 5.173.48.6 (talk) 10:41, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Can you give a better example? The Superman article uses {{Infobox comics character}}, which allows the |homeworld= (Place of origin) parameter and no either/or option. Please give an example of {{Infobox character}} that shows how this change would be useful and needed. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 15:23, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
Afor example all the "home" Camelot characters that "origin" come from all sorts of places. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.173.89.110 (talk) 20:43, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
Please be more specific... what is needed are character articles that use this template, and which need both "home" and "origin" parameters for different values. If this cannot be shone, then there is no proven need for more than the |origin= (or |home=) parameter as it presently exists in this template. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 22:58, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

I never asked "for more than the |origin= (or |home=) parameter as it presently exists in this template", I requested for them to be ENABLED TO BOTH EXIST IN THE SAME SINGLE INFOBOX AT THE SAME TIME. Meaning both being present simultaneously, instead of forcing people to choose only single either and not the other, because the other just won't show up if 2 are used (and they're different, as you yourself noted) and I asked for both to show up when both are used. (Just as I said with "Right now only either can show up, forcing to choose between the backstory and the story".)

Example: Lancelot's "origin" is the Kingdom of Benoic (which is where he comes from), but his "home" in the actual story is The Lake ans then Camelot and later also Joyous Gard (his own castle). Right now only "origin" is used, because "home" cannot be seen if 'origin" is also being used for no reason (and vice versa, origin cannot be seen if home is placed above it in the box), and this needs to be rectified by enabling both to be seen when they're both being used. Is it specific enough now?

It might be simply an error and not something decided so absurdly, but just please fix it nevertheless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.173.41.130 (talk) 05:21, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Eroding the urinal cake

What about a "Motion capture" parameter? Or would that be redundant? Americanfreedom (talk) 01:57, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

@Americanfreedom: It's already there. Use |motion_actor=. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:09, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Honorific prefixes and suffixes

Hello - could we add a parameter for honorific prefixes and suffixes, like we do at Template:Infobox officeholder? Some fictional characters have these, like Jim Hacker and Humphrey Appleby. Cheers! Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:32, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Relatives

Hello, recently I removed the fields about the relatives in Superman (DC Extended Universe), because I remember that @Bignole said that these fields are only for character whose relatives are essential in order to understand the article, but @InfiniteNexus said that these fields are for every notable relative. Who's right? (Sorry for the ping) Redjedi23 (talk) 11:35, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

It is my understanding that only characters who have articles/redirects (i.e. are notable) should be included in the |family= parameter. This is how it's done on all of the character articles on my watchlist. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:23, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
Just for clearness, you'd insert Kent's relatives and significant others (Jonathan and Martha, Lois Lane, Jor-El, etc...) in this article: Clark Kent (Smallville)? Redjedi23 (talk) 17:31, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
Yes. Jonathan and Martha Kent, Lois Lane, and Jor-El are all blue links. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:32, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
The infobox is only for information that is essential to understanding the character. Lois Lane isn't essential to understanding Clark Kent/Superman, as each are notable independent of the other. We don't include "family" simply because they have their own page. We especially don't do that because these are fictional characters, so we don't treat them like real people, hence why ALL information is supposed to be essential to understanding the character. Maybe 95% of characters are never going to need a "family" section because they aren't going to be needed to understand the character of the article. An example of the opposite would be Lionel Luthor, who isn't really a character from the comics. Thus, knowing that he is Lex Luthor's father is more essential to that character than in the reverse. If you need better reasoning, then see WP:WAF-INFO: For entities within fiction, useful infobox data might include the creators or actors, first appearance, an image, and in-universe information essential to understanding the entity's context in the overall fiction. What qualifies as essential varies based on the nature of the work. Where facts change at different points in a story or series, there may be no appropriate in-universe information at all to add. By contrast, an infobox on a character in a fantasy work with multiple warring factions may warrant data such as allegiance.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:28, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
How is Lois Lane [not] essential to understanding Clark Kent/Superman, as each are notable independent of the other? The problem with this subjective approach is ... well, it's subjective. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:04, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
She isn't essential to understanding Clark Kent/Superman because Clark Kent/Superman is independently notable beyond his relationship with Lois Lane. While there are aspects of that which are "subjective", it is OBJECTIVE that Superman is more notable than Lois Lane. You can go to pretty much any place in the world and find people that know who Superman is. That isn't true for Lois Lane. The real question is: "Would the absence of this information inhibit the understanding of the character?" That is how you determine if something is essential to the infobox. You do NOT determine it by saying "well, do they have their own wikipage?" Lois Lane not being mentioned in Superman's infobox does not hurt your understanding of the character in any capacity (again, because they aren't real, so knowing they have a relationship to any other character is merely fan service in most situations).
One of the other reasons why this section is intended to be used sparingly is because is provokes editors to just start adding more and more people until you virtually have a family tree in the infobox. I'm not sure if you were here back then, but the fucking Skywalker family was obscenely detailed in each character's infobox.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:43, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
I agree, the Star Wars character infoboxes are filled with useless stuff, I would even remove these fields. Redjedi23 (talk) 19:00, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
If we go by that logic, we might as well remove the |significant_other= parameter. Lois Lane is 100% relevant to Clark Kent and 100% should be linked in his infobox; I'm baffled that you think otherwise. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:39, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
Oh wait. You're right, there are some character that are essential in order to understand other characters. But there are several bad uses of these parameters. Pages like Darth Vader are good examples. For this reason, I would remove these parameters; I can barely see a correct use of “significant other”, etc... Redjedi23 (talk) 16:43, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
The Darth Vader article does not use |significant_other=, and I disagree with your assessment that many articles are using that parameter incorrectly. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:45, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
Sorry, but I was talking about “family”, “significant other”, etc..., not only about “significant other”. Redjedi23 (talk) 16:52, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

InfiniteNexus, you're 100% wrong on the Lois and Clark thing. She isn't "essential" to understanding Clark Kent or Superman. You could argue the reverse, that they are essential to understanding her, but it isn't a two-way street. That said, the guide says "essential". This discussion started with the idea that anyone with a blue link should be in the infobox...that's just factually wrong. Either way, I would absolutely say get rid of "significant other". That redundant when you have "family" anyway, as significant others are considered one's family.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:39, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

You're correct. Superman is Superman. He's certainly notable himself. Lois Lane is not necessary in order to understand the character, although is surely an important character in the lore. Redjedi23 (talk) 22:21, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
If Superman is Superman, then what related character would you include? There certainly isn't anyone more important than Superman around him. The guideline says the characters have to be essential to understanding the entity's context in the overall fiction. If there are relevant parents and a stable/best known significant other, it seems to qualify as essential to the character's context. —El Millo (talk) 00:56, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
I wouldn't include any related characters. Redjedi23 (talk) 06:36, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Lois may be important to the lore, but that doesn't make her essential to understanding Superman. That's the point. No one is saying she isn't important in the comics, notable in her own right, etc. She just isn't essential to knowing who Superman is----Superman IS essential to knowing who she is though. So, if there was an argument for placement, it would be him appearing on her infobox but not her on his. The same is true for Ma and Pa Kent. While they are important in the fiction, they are not essential to understanding Superman for the purposes of the infobox, because Superman transcends those characters...and all other characters for that matter. His iconic status negates the idea that any other character is NEEDED to understand him in the context of the fiction.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:04, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
I disagree that Lois Lane isn't essential to understanding Superman, and that's the problem with your approach. It is not possible for editors to sit down and have a discussion on every single character article's infobox. If anything, MOS:WAF-INFO should be amended to remove its subjectiveness. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:51, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
The guideline doesn't say it has to be essential to understanding the character, it says it has to be essential to understanding the character's context. Superman's parents are essential to the character's context, as Batman's parents are. Batman doesn't have a designated love interest that is common across most media, so there's no singular character that would be essential there, but Superman does and it's Lois Lane. That to me is essential to understanding the character's context. If you disagree, it's clear that it's too subjective a measure to use. Using a different measure, something like being included in a relevant capacity in most depictions of the character, could be less subjective and thus more useful. —El Millo (talk) 21:27, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Does she add to the context? Yes. But she isn't essential. Without Lois Lane, you would still know and understand Superman. Superman has also had multiple love interests across the length of his comic book that were most lasting than a single one-off issue. Either way, the question that should be asked is: "Would the average reader understand this character (the one the page is about), if the relative/significant other/etc. was NOT including in the infobox?"  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:06, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Color

Color was removed from the example infobox, but it still needs to be removed from the usage section and the parameters section. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 22:20, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Directly above this is the section that Primefac will get to the cleanup shortly when he has time. -- ferret (talk) 01:08, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
Weirdly it seems to default to sky blue now instead of the more useful light gray?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:43, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
It should be default infobox colors, in my view, but was set to match another character infobox. @Izno: could you assist here? Styling is not my strong suit. I noticed this infobox doesn't seem to have the latest style sheet approach? -- ferret (talk) 18:54, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
@Gonnym implemented the blue that comics character uses. I do not know why. I've set it to the same color as the header color, which I would guess was the intent, since that's almost what the default was before. Izno (talk) 02:14, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
Just to comment. Removing the "background-color" field resulted in a strange style. Even now it uses a color, which as Izno pointed, it's "#DEDEE2". I didn't really care which one, so picked one style that is already used by another character infobox for a consistent look between the two. Gonnym (talk) 07:36, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Propose removal of the Color parameter

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is clear consensus to remove the color parameter from character infoboxes. The response breakdown is nearly 3:1, and those opposing the removal of the character would need an incredibly powerful policy based argument to establish a consensus, or even swing the result to no consensus. Most of the opposition arguments are framed as how the issues raised by those supporting could be mitigated, but from the strong majority supporting it is clear that the possibility of mitigation was not sufficient to sway the consensus. I also found the argument comparing removing a parameter from an infobox to 1984 to be very weak. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:54, 28 June 2023 (UTC)


I'd like to propose the depreciation and removal of the color parameter. This field is generally being removed from Video Game character articles as a general consensus among the project's maintainers already. The colors used are generally unofficial, unsourced, arbitrary selections by drive by fans/editors. Many times, despite the template's guidance, they do not adhere to Accessibility. Allowing editors to randomly theme infoboxes and navboxes should generally be discouraged. We, as a project, remove these bad color selections, only for another fan to come back through and add it to every character of their favorite franchise again. -- ferret (talk) 15:22, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

  • Support Honestly it's a pain in the ass to constantly keep removing: there's often no rhyme or reason to it, and it ruins article consistently. Not to mention it's often an eyesore and drags the reader's eye away from not only the image but the text itself, at least in my case.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:32, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Support. Nothing more than an eyesore that ruins article consistency. The Night Watch (talk) 15:38, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Support It creates accessibility concerns and edit wars for no good benefit. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 17:08, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Support - It's tiresome to keep arguing with people who try to tinker with this setting. Sergecross73 msg me 17:13, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Support Offers nothing of value to the reader and is often a source of edit warring. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 17:13, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose Edit-warring is a problem on some articles, but this isn't the way. There needs to be some guidance on the template doc or at MOS:WAF-INFO on how to determine which color to use for each franchise. The accessibility issue can easily be dealt with using the widely-used User:Alex 21/script-tablecolour script. Keep in mind that we also use colors in {{Episode table}}, {{Series overview}}, and {{Infobox television season}}. Normally, the colors used in those templates are extracted from posters or other marketing materials, a practice we can borrow for {{Infobox character}}. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:28, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
    Addendum: I understand it is the consensus of the VG project not to use colors. That's fine with me, but we should not be removing a parameter from a template that is not solely used on VG articles just to conform to one WikiProject's standards. I'll notify WP:FILM and WP:TV of this discussion as well. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:33, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
    How do you get anonymous IP editors (the editors who color war the most) to follow MOS and use the script? TarkusABtalk/contrib 17:44, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
    By using hidden warning editors against changing them. IP editors will not be the ones who ensure the colors conform to MOS:COLOR. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:46, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
    A problem with this approach is that editors, IP or otherwise, will often simply remove hidden notes and put a color that is not accessible anyway. Or if there's a hidden note saying "don't put one at all", same thing happens. What results is a needless maintenance task for other editors. Infoboxes and navboxes should, in my opinion, be consistent across all articles. I have no opinion on Episode table/Series overview, as that is essentially Table legend/key coloring and a wholly different topic/usage. -- ferret (talk) 20:08, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
    Okay, alternative proposal: how about we hard-code the hex codes directly into the infobox template so it generates a color automatically based on the |franchise= and |series= parameters? InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:19, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
    Before I give thought to that, let me be clear on what I definitely want to see stopped. What we're seeing is not cases of "Every Mario character has a Red infobox because the Mario franchise is red." What we're constantly dealing with is every Mario character being given their own arbitrary personal color. Mario Red, Luigi green, Yoshi a different green, Peach pink, Daisy orange, and so on. And not consistent colors. If one person is reverted at Mario, the next person will enter a different hex code for a shade of red. -- ferret (talk) 20:24, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
    They definitely shouldn't be arbritary like that, all characters in a franchise should have the same infobox color for consistency. That's how we currently do it for MCU characters. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:33, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Support For video games, colors are completed arbitrary. --Masem (t) 17:32, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose Claiming colors of all things are pointless - is this 1984? In any case, this argument is based on a faulty premise that doesn't actually exist. Per InfiniteNexus, the colors can easily be adjusted to be accessible. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:39, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
    I don't understand how you, an editor who edits character articles, have missed the point so badly here. Have you really not witnessed these stupid edit wars? One person changes Sonic's infobox to blue, while another says it's more of a royal blue, while someone else claims it's a third blue. It's nothing but a time sink. Even the music Wikiprojects have a consensus again colored infoboxes, because of similar stupid "I think heavy metal gives off red vibes" type arguments. Sergecross73 msg me 20:36, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
    Is it technically possible to have the template automatically detect which color to use based on the infobox image? InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:39, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
    I don't know, but I think the bigger problem is: who is to say with color is "correct" in the first place? Sergecross73 msg me 20:42, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
    The first editor who selects a reasonable, MOS:COLOR-conforming color, per MOS:VAR. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:45, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
    Yeah, that would create a "right version" to revert to, but it wouldn't stop the edit warring over something with no real value or benefit. Sergecross73 msg me 21:02, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Support Consistently creates accessibility issues with colorblind readers. It does not improve the reader's comprehension or navigation; it is purely decorative. (MOS:DECORATION talks about this in regards to icons, but the same principle can be applied to template colors). Also, color wars are lame. TarkusABtalk/contrib 17:44, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Neutral: I can see the argument for abandoning colours entirely for both accessibility and ease of editing, but they do act as useful identifiers and if they are retained probably need firm and unambiguous usage guidelines. --ProtoDrake (talk) 18:31, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
    Could you elaborate? For example, let's say we set Mario's infobox to some shade of red, that's accessible. How does it act as an identifier? -- ferret (talk) 18:44, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
    I don't think it's an identifier myself. I do, however, think that discounting anything visually appealing as unnecessary and superfluous is a mistake. I'll be frank, I probably wouldn't edit Wikipedia nearly as much if it still used a skin like Monobook, so visuals are important. Colors make a box look better and I really don't think there needs to be a further justification for it, and asking to remove it is a solution seeking a problem. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:51, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
    I think that color element is what I mean by an identifier. Though depending on the images, that could be countered if the color element ends up vanishing. --ProtoDrake (talk) 20:05, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Support as unencyclopedic. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 19:59, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
    How exactly is a simple color scheme "unencyclopedic"? I don't understand at all. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:55, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose I don't think colours in an infobox are unencyclopedic - most infoboxes use them on here? Accessibility is not an issue here, since colours that are too dark/light are corrected to be accessible. – Meena • 20:20, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment - If we're only talking about the horizontal bars in an infobox, I don't think it matters much. They could be random colours. However, if kept, they need to follow Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Accessibility#Color. If it is not reasonably possible for the average editor to follow that guidance with this, then the option should be deleted. - jc37 22:05, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
    Correct. We're talking about the ability to change the background of the horizontal bars/headers only. -- ferret (talk) 22:28, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Support I've never seen the colour parameter used in a way that's beneficial for the reader. It's just an unnecessary decorative element, and almost always original research. And, as Sergecross73 mentioned above, the silly edit wars and tinkering, usually between IP editors. Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 02:24, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose per InfiniteNexus, ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ, and Meena. I'd also add that removing colors as a possibility altogether seems rather severe. Definitely can be misused or annoying in edit-warring situations. But there's articles (like the MCU example mentioned previously; or Breaking Bad character articles) that use it just fine. Calling it an eyesore is a problem that can be resolved via Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility which has the whole purpose of making colors on Wikipedia accessible, or not an eyesore to those with accessibility issues (who I assume are more prone to encountering that sort of problem). On the opinion that colors in the infobox offer nothing to the reader... well that's subjective, as some readers would like the visual design element a color can provide to a character's infobox. Providing a splash of visual design can definitely help with the overall visual flow of an article. In a case where colors are specifically being argued back and forth, we can try to find an official hex color code (or maybe use a color picker on official art of the character), but even if we don't do that we can still solve this via the MOS:VAR guideline mentioned by InfiniteNexus.Soulbust (talk) 10:01, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
    Breaking Bad colors aren't consistent. Most characters are using a green color, but Saul Goodman and Mike Ehrmantraut are blackish, and Gus Fring is yellow. Maybe the blackish color is supposed to be for Better Call Saul (Chuck McGill and Howard Hamlin have it), but of the 8 characters in Better Call Saul with articles, the other four (including Gus Fring again) are using four different colors. Plantdrew (talk) 21:32, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Support Readers won't know what different colors are supposed to indicate. Is there any guidance out there for editors telling them what colors to use with this infobox (aside from guidance about accessibility)? There is (old) guidance for {{Infobox music genre}} at Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/Music genres task force/Colours, but support for different colors has been removed from that infobox. Plantdrew (talk) 15:51, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Support removal per WP:COLOR. One point not listed there is that arbitrary/changeable colors tend to wreak havoc with our attempts at supporting dark mode. Izno (talk) 03:01, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
    If arbritrary colors are a issue, someone should say something about {{Episode table}}, {{Series overview}}, and {{Infobox television season}} too. As I mentioned above, these templates also use colors that are "arbitrarily" selected by editors based on posters or logos. Why only crack down on this template? InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:39, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
    I have problems with those too, but I don't edit those areas as frequently, and "You haven't fixed the other things yet" can't be a barrier to "starting to fix the things". I'd be happy to tackle those templates next if this discussion reaches a consensus to remove such decorative coloring. -- ferret (talk) 22:15, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
    The existence of color params on those templates demonstrates that there is consensus for the use of "arbitrarily" selected colors among at least one other WikiProject. Now, if it is the consensus of WikiProject Video games not to use these colors, that's fine, then don't use them in video game articles. But other WikiProjects shouldn't be forced to do the same by having the option removed entirely. Yes, edit-warring is a problem and has always been one, which is why we have the essay WP:COLORWAR — but notice how that essay does not identify "getting rid of colors outright" as a solution to that problem. As others have pointed out above, there is nothing inherently wrong with using colors in infoboxes, nor does this infobox's use of colors violate WP:COLOR in any way. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:34, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
    I echo this. Edit wars will always occur on every part of this site - is the best option really to remove colours altogether? – Meena • 09:53, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
    Just to add some information which might be of value to someone, {{Infobox television}} used to have color values which were removed 7 years ago. Gonnym (talk) 10:33, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
    Indeed. The general consensus across most Infoboxes is that users should not be setting arbitrary colors. Whether table-based templates should follow that or not is a separate discussion. Within the sphere of infoboxes, setting colors is abnormal in the vast majority of cases. I can see a functional purpose in templates that support large tables having color coding for a legend. I do not see any argument presented for the infobox that is not based in being decorative. -- ferret (talk) 14:17, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
    I only listed those three TV-related templates because they are closely related to this infobox. There are plenty of other exmaples of infoboxes and other templates that use colors for the same reason Infobox character uses them. {{Christmas}} is red, {{Pink Panther}} is pink. Virtually all sports team infoboxes and navboxes use colors. So do virtually all university navboxex. If it were true that there is consensus against using colors this way, then the practice wouldn't be so widespread. I don't see any evidence of this "consensus" on our PAG pages either, there is WP:COLOR and MOS:NAVBOXCOLOR and WP:COLORWAR ... none of which discourage using colors like this. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:47, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
    Yes, arbitrary colors in all templates are an issue, for WP:ACCESS reasons alone. This discussion is about this template though, not those. See WP:OSE. Izno (talk) 04:54, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
    ACCESS is an issue that can easily be addressed, via scripts or bots or by manual adjustment. OSE is probably the single most frequently miscited essay on Wikipedia; it's about XfDs and not anything else, the relevant all-purpose essay is WP:SSE, which discusses how it is useful to look at what other articles/templates do in order to determine "style and phraseology" not codified in PAGs ... such as the use of "arbritary" colors in infoboxes and other templates (which again, no guideline prohibits as long as the colors are AAA-compliant). InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:03, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment I watch this page mainly for maintenance purposes and do not have an opinion on the question directly, but I will offer up the suggestion that if colour options are kept for this infobox, that they be hard-coded into the template itself and colour decisions be made on a project- or category-wide basis. This will minimise the amount of edit warring that will happen as well as promote the same-topic colour scheme that those in support of keeping the colouration seem to favour. Primefac (talk) 10:11, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
    @Primefac This has been floated in the discussion, but from the view of "franchises", which I think will be far too bulky and unwieldy to manage. -- ferret (talk) 12:45, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
    That was the word I was looking for! If it's unreasonable, then that's fine, I figured I would throw it out there. Primefac (talk) 12:48, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
    I worry that we're talking a list of 100+ options, all of which will have arbitrarily, if accessible, chosen colors that are unofficial and with no sourced backing in terms of branding. In the end, they will remain decorative only, with no functional use. -- ferret (talk) 12:52, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
    We are not asking for unreasonable colors like pink for Harry Potter or blue for The Simpsons. Following {{Episode table}}, {{Series overview}}, and {{Infobox television season}}'s leads, the colors should be lifted from the franchise's logo or established theme colors. As long as they are reasonable, MOS:COLOR-compliant in terms of accessibility, and have the support of the community (WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS and MOS:VAR), there should be no problem with them. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:47, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
    Should Yoshi's banner be red (becase Mario series) or green (because Yoshi series)? Which shade of green? The logo has a gradient so it's not clear. Not every charachter or series has officially published RGB or hex values. Picking a key color ourselves would be original research, and could mislead readers that it is an official color. On top of that, I can see Yoshi is green, why does the banner need to be green too? If it's red because Mario, well, that's now just confusing ("Why is this banner red? The character is green.") and not how we use color codes now anways. And making the banner red doesn't actually give the reader any information, like that he is part of the Mario series. The series field in the infobox indicates that. TarkusABtalk/contrib 20:22, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
    You mean like how Hulk is green, but is an MCU character (which would mean red banner)? I think it's handled just fine...
    And on the topic that ferret brought up, about 100+ options. I don't see the amount being an issue. Similar concepts for sports teams (like this module for basketball team colors, or the one for college team colors) often have to deal with more hundreds of color codes and it isn't an actual problem. I get the lack of official RGB or hex values can be an issue, but like InfiniteNexus said we can simply use reasonable, MOS:COLOR-compliant colors that have community support. Even without an official hex code, these characters or franchises still have official logos that we can pick colors from. Soulbust (talk) 21:27, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
    You guys know the MCU infoboxes have an ugly pink color for people using dark mode inversions right? :P -- ferret (talk) 21:42, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
    I would have never understood why that banner was red, genuinely. Same reason I don't know why John Doggett's banner is an obnoxious green. These colors give no information. TarkusABtalk/contrib 21:47, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
    Yeah that pink (#FFA4AC) with the black text created from the dark mode inversion is still color compliant and I think that when users switch to that dark mode theme, they understand that colors will intrinsically change from what they look like on the light mode... Even the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility has its greens and reds become uglier (in my opinion) when in dark mode. But that ugliness is just that, an opinion and shouldn't have a bearing on the discussion as long as the colors are compliant for accessibility.
    About the colors offering no information, the "Marvel Cinematic Universe character" designation at the top of the infobox below the red helps in conjunction with the red since I think it's fair to say that readers of MCU character articles are probably invested in the MCU/Marvel, and would know that white text on a red background is consistent with Marvel's branding and color usage. And even if they don't know that or are not invested in the MCU, if they use the wikilinks to navigate to the Marvel or the MCU articles, they'll see that white on red Marvel logo. It's pretty intuitive that Leslie Knope's infobox has the green in the Parks and Rec logo that a reader sees when they click on the Parks and Recreation link in said infobox.
    I don't know enough about X-Files' color palette, themes, or just the show in general to offer any comment on that, but I do agree it should be consistent with other X-Files characters. Seems like this can be fixed separate from nuking colors on the character infoboxes. Soulbust (talk) 22:28, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
    Why are we assisting with the branding of properties? That is not our goal. -- ferret (talk) 22:56, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
    I never said we were or that we should... or that is our goal or my goal. Not even implied in my comment. I only stated that the readers on MCU character articles are likely invested with the MCU and Marvel in general, and therefore would know why the white text on red background is in the infobox as those colors are consistent with Marvel's branding.
    Soulbust (talk) 23:05, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
    I certainly don't think color matching is "assisting with branding", it's solely for easy identification purposes and visual interest along the lines of putting a fair-use piece of cover art there. We aren't sticking banner ads of the franchise in question on the Wikipedia page. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:46, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Support. It's distracting, it's unnecessary. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 09:30, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment Whatever the outcome of this discussion, please ensure that the other infoboxes in the same family remain consistent with each other. Those other infoboxes are: {{Infobox fictional artifact}}, {{Infobox fictional location}}, {{Infobox fictional organization}}, {{Infobox fictional race}}, {{Infobox fictional family}}, and {{Infobox fictional vehicle}}. Yes, it's more widely used than you might think. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:29, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
    I'd support that. -- ferret (talk) 00:34, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
    I've noticed those template talk pages don't seem to have been notified about the discussion going on here, so if they are to be changed, I think this discussion should be posted on all of them. Simply changing other templates based on an unrelated discussion going on with a different template doesn't make a whole lot of sense. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:43, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
     Notified. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:04, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
  • I think that we shouldn't remove the color paramater from the infobox, but we should establish the use of a single color per media franchise. MCU articles use white text on a red background, and I'm pretty ok with that. But, for example, we have DCEU articles, where each character has its own color. This don't give any useful information to the reader. Redjedi23 (talk) 16:07, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
    @Redjedi23: I assume that would be an oppose to this particular proposal then? You shouldn't let the fact that there are many supports prevent you from stating your opinion, since it is WP:NOTAVOTE. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:39, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
    As I stated, I disagree with the removal of the color parameter. So yes, I oppose this proposal. Redjedi23 (talk) 21:01, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
  • {{Infobox television}} is another infobox that used to support different colors, but that was removed following this discussion: Template_talk:Infobox_television/Archive_9#Color_subpage. I'd guess colors for some television characters are still following whatever colors were used for the shows. Plantdrew (talk) 21:23, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Another observation: Template:Infobox comics character, which is similarly used on character articles, uses only a default infobox color. Gonnym (talk) 08:18, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
    I can pull up plenty of examples too.
    InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:33, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
    I think Gonnym's point is that they're pulling up examples that are directly relevant to this infobox's area. -- ferret (talk) 18:49, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
    Well, I did also link six fiction-related infoboxes above. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:53, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
    {{Infobox deity}} documents what colors to use and they're hard-coded based on |type=. {{Infobox legislature}} uses colors that are hard-coded in {{Party color}}. {{infobox train}} uses various templates such as {{SE colour}} with hard-coded values for each. {{Infobox rail line}} uses {{Rail color}} which has hard-coded values. Yes, other infobox templates use colors, but they make some attempt to document and manage them, which this template doesn't do.
    Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Color scheme was abandoned in favor of a single color in 2006. That had used pale red color for Marvel, with a color close to that used for the MCU in this template for British comics. And the result now is Thor (Marvel Cinematic Universe) uses this template and has a red color, Thor (film) uses a film infobox with no color, and Thor (Marvel Comics) and Thor (Marvel Comics) in other media use a comics template with a blue color. Oh well, can't expect consistency across all infoboxes, but if the red is used consistently for MCU articles with this template that really ought to be documented somewhere. Plantdrew (talk) 01:53, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
    Huh, I didn't notice that colors were hard-coded into those templates in addition to having a |color= parameter. It seems pretty weird that they have that option, given the point of hard-coding is to avoid arbritrary inconsistency, but whatever. I (and Primefac, with the support of Soulbust) have already suggested above that we hard-code colors into this template too, and I continue to recommend we do so instead of removing colors outright, which is unnecessary, unhelpful, overkill, and detrimental to readers. Admittedly, this is similar to the WikiProject Comics proposal you linked above, but WP:CCC.
    The various articles about Thor may not be consistent, but you're comparing apples to oranges. This is like saying Ronald Reagan should follow the same structure as Presidency of Ronald Reagan; no, what's important is that Ronald Reagan has a similar structure to Richard Nixon, and Presidency of Ronald Reagan has a similar structure to Presidency of Richard Nixon. As long as all of the MCU films have no color, all of the MCU characters use red, and all Marvel Comics characters use blue, we're good. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:17, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
    To be clear, Primefac only offered it as a suggestion if color is kept, not as a support to keeping color. It's looking like a pretty clear consensus at this point. -- ferret (talk) 13:09, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
    I'm obviously biased, but I don't think the consensus is that clear. The supporters of the proposal may have a numerical advantage, but I do believe our side has some strong arguments. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:20, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I've requested at close at CR. -- ferret (talk) 13:24, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

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

Implementation

@Primefac: Could you please do the deed? Maybe wait a few days though. The color parameter needs removed and cleaned up for: {{Infobox character}}, {{Infobox fictional artifact}}, {{Infobox fictional location}}, {{Infobox fictional organization}}, {{Infobox fictional race}}, {{Infobox fictional family}}, and {{Infobox fictional vehicle}}. -- ferret (talk) 14:13, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I am somewhat uncomfortable doing this for the other templates; the notifications about this discussion were placed only a week ago, and there were no substantive new comments following those notifications. I am somewhat busy the next few days and would likely not be able to get to this until next week anyway, but if no one opposes here I will still indicate that the infobox changes are roughly based on the precedent from this discussion rather than because of this discussion. Primefac (talk) 12:54, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Works for me and makes sense. -- ferret (talk) 13:07, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Just as an update, this template has been sorted (was going to finish the bot run today but seems TAnthony beat me to it). I've updated the templates listed above and will wait a few days just to see if there is any significant backlash before removing the parameters on articles. Primefac (talk) 16:58, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
FYI, I've removed the color parameter from a couple thousand character articles over the last few days (including some high-traffic articles for Disney animated, superhero and Star Wars characters, etc.) and so far to my knowledge haven't had a single revert or talk page comment. Primefac, all that's left in the maintenance category are list articles that are easier to do manually than with AWB because they usually contain multiple uses of the template. If you can program the bot to easily take care of these, feel free! Thanks.— TAnthonyTalk 17:05, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
Out of the fictional infoboxes, Template:Infobox soap character still uses color parameters. Gonnym (talk) 05:28, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at WT:VGCHAR § Infoboxes and a "Manual of Style"

 You are invited to join the discussion at WT:VGCHAR § Infoboxes and a "Manual of Style". – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 07:31, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Just to be clear, this is ONLY for video game characters, no other characters. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 09:07, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Suggestion: "First_major" to display "First major" instead of "First appearance"

Right now the use of first_major is a bit useless: it basically serves the same purpose as "first" but with extra steps. However changing it to "First major" could be useful for cases where a character first makes a smaller appearance in a work and then is later on featured in a medium of the same type properly (case in point, instances like Vaan (Final Fantasy)) Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:27, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

I would simply just deprecate it entirely. First should just be first, no qualifiers that it's a minor or major. That's what prose is for, to explain what is major or minor.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:32, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
It is useful for TV fictional characters such as Clark Kent (Smallville) Redjedi23 (talk) 14:39, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
How? His first appearance on anything was the Smallville pilot. I'm not sure how having a "First appearance" and "First major appearance" would be any different. Again, first appearance is first appearance, no matter if it's major or minor. You can argue that Martian Manhunter's first appearance on Smallville was "minor", but it's still his first appearance. You start quibbling over major and minor and next thing you know you're doing it over television vs. literature vs. film (ala the characters in Firefly). First is first. Let the prose suss out the differences in levels of appearance with context.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:50, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
The problem is sometimes a character's first appearance, even if it's notable for comment, isn't their first major appearance. For example a good case would be several comic book characters that get introduced in a smaller role in an ongoing comic, but not have a major actual appearance until several years later (Punisher is actually a good example of this, with the character not appearing in his own comic until the 80's but the infobox makes no indication of this).--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:58, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
You're right, but "first_major" displays Smallville while "first_minor" displays "Pilot". As far as I understand, it is a practice way to standardize the appearance for TV fictional characters. Redjedi23 (talk) 15:29, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
Short of sources describing them thusly, how are we to judge whether a character's appearance qualifies as major or minor, and are we prepared to prescribe that both fields must always be supported by sources? DonIago (talk) 15:45, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
For TV characters "first_minor" should be compiled with the episode while "first_major" should be compiled with the TV series name. Redjedi23 (talk) 15:47, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
Thank you. I misconstrued the proper use of the parameters based on the way they'd been described upthread. DonIago (talk) 04:38, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
I'm not sure what this discussion is about, but it seems like a big misunderstanding of the parameters. |first_major= works in conjunction with |first_minor= if a character's first appearance is in a TV show. |first_major= is for the name of the show, and |first_minor= is for the name of the episode. If a character's first appearance is in a film or book or video game, only |first= is used. "Major" and "minor" in this case refer to the concept of WP:MAJORWORKs and WP:MINORWORKs, not whether a character's first appearance was "major" (as in, important or significant) or not. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:32, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
That is incredibly convoluted, and not even a single video game character article even uses it in the way the template is trying to suggest. You could get the same results with those tags as you can with a line break, even looking at a lot of comic book articles that's how they go about it. What's needed is something to differentiate between a "first appearance" and a "first major appearance".--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:13, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
It seems pretty clear-cut based on the documentation for the template; whether it's being used properly is a different matter.
Your suggestion would, as noted above, open the floodgates to debates over what constitutes a "major" appearance; perhaps you could propose some wording for that? DonIago (talk) 04:40, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
Perhaps "Use this parameter in instances where a character's first appearance was as a background, supporting or cameo role, and a later work in the same vein made the character a primary focus"? There are at least several examples I can think of where this happens: Gouken, Vaan (Final Fantasy), Punisher, Han Lue (albeit the notability of that one is questionable) and Saul Goodman to name a few. Comic book and television media along probably have more instances of this happening than in gaming to be fair, but still it's often enough to inform the reader at a glance.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:43, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
That's still subjective though, unless what you're actually saying is that whether it's a "major" appearance must be supported by sourcing describing it as such...but you didn't say that in your proposed text. DonIago (talk) 15:39, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
Again, that is not how the parameters work at all. Just because some people are using the parameters incorrectly does not mean we should get rid of them entirely, nor should we change the purpose/meaning of the parameters. To reiterate, "major" and "minor" refer to major vs. minor works, not large vs. small roles. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:56, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Infobox_character/Archive_6&oldid=1214656173"