Template talk:Infobox soap character 2/Archive 2

This page contains discussions moved from Template talk:Infobox EastEnders character 2. That template later became Template:Infobox soap character 2.

This template was considered for deletion on 2010 March 9. The result of the discussion was "keep".

More family fields[edit]

Shall we add more fields here? They have been quite thorough on the Us soap infobox Template:Infobox soap character Gung adin ♦ 18:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also what are your thoughts about including more image fields for recasts? They have done this in the Us infobox too, they seem to have 3 options, see here for example Babe Carey.Gung adin ♦ 18:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really mind if you add more family and image fields. I also don't really mind if you don't. Might as well do it then... lol — AnemoneProjectors (会話) 19:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, I appreciate your thoroughness, but don't you think "great great grandchildren" and "2nd cousin four" is overkill? I don't even think someone's second cousin four times removed should be mentioned in their infobox at all, that's like listing "guy that lives in the same town." Just my 2 cents. ;) — TAnthony^Talk 06:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

lol, that's very true. The recent additions of all those fields is just a compromise, so that we can keep the family lists off the bottom of the character pages (they kept being reinstated). I dont mind how thorough people are with it as long as it stops all the reverting and edit-warring :) Gung adin 11:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It gets rid of the family sections people seem to hate, but keeps the information in a hiddne bit of the infobox - the fields are all optional, and have only been added if they are needed for certain characters. (See Nellie Ellis). I don't see what the problem is. It's a compromise, thorough and optional. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fix needed[edit]

There's a stray {{#if: | on here somewhere, which is showing up on all the infobox 2s. I cant spot it, can u see it? Gung adin 22:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've done it but it got rid of "other relatives" cos I copied it form Ibox 3 - but we dont need "other relatives" anyway. The documentation needs sorting out, and I don't understand it... -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, we've now added all other relatives possible, so it's redundant anyway :) Gung adin 22:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3rd image and caption[edit]

Shall we add a 3rd image box. They have 3 image fields in the US soap infobox. Will be good for characters like Jnaine and Liam Butcher.Gung adin 16:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think Janine's and Peter's look fine at the moment - I think another section will look too big. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 16:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I dont like the way they look at the moment. I prefer it with just two images.Gung adin 16:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with how they look? -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 16:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like a collage, and makes the ibox too big.Gung adin 16:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If we add a third image box maybe we should make the second and third image boxes collapsible like the family box? -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 16:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or we could try to have it so it goes:

Image
Caption
Image
Caption
to break up the pictures, because at the moment it's:
Image
Image
Caption
Caption -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think I'd be keen on collapsible, cos I like having the original actors constantly visible. let's try the "br" thing, that might work. We should probably change the title to "alternative image(s)" tooGung adin 17:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Fields?[edit]

What do you think about adding a gender and sexuality field to the infobox? Gung adin 18:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That it's pointless, and that it would give vandals a field day to add |gender=girl to Ben Mitchell or |sexuality=Gay!!!! to Phil Mitchell etc. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Do you think we should get rid of the marital status field then? That's also pointless? Plus, i'm bored of seeing people add "in a relationship with such and such".Gung adin 18:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, and I don't think it makes any sense that dead characters' marital status is deceased... -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we should get rid of the status field. We've changed enough on the infoboxes as it is! :) We need at least ONE constant

Conquistado2k6 01:07 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, it can stay if you like it. Putting "in a relationship with blah blah" does bug me though. Dating is not a marital status is it? They are either single or married. someone who is dating is legally single. Ive been seeing my boyfriend for years, but I still fill out single in forms. Just a personal gripe I have. Trampikey has a point too, deceased isnt a marital status either.Gung adin 00:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Status[edit]

I'm bringing this up again because I really dont think it's necessary to have marital status in the infobox. It's covered in the family section under husbands/wives anyway. From looking at that we know if they are married or divorced, whether they are in a relationship is not relevant to anything. I propose that the definition of status be changed to say whether the character is a current, recurring, guest, or former. Date of death usually can cover whether the character is deceased; however, for ones like Rosa di Marco, whose dod we havent found out yet, we wont be able to say whether she's alive or dead. We could have a separate field to say just alive or deceased, but I dont think it's necessary, plus some characters like Jules Tavernier will forever remain "alive" because we will probably never be informed of their death, and I know they arent real and never actually die, but I dont think it's realistic. Thoughts? GG ^Moan 16:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with what you've said, and for characters like Rosa we can put a year of death - though we should know her date of death from when Beppe found out, surely? Also, there's a problem having current/recurring/guest/former because it's open to interpretation, and therefore could incite (sp?) vandalism. Also, would we put "former guest" or "former recurring" etc, and what would the field be called? -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beppe was off-screen when she died. We had in the article that she died on the day of Beppe's departure, but I recently saw that episode and she was only hospitalised. Beppe didnt come back - he telephoned Lynne to say Rosa had died sometime later and that he was not returning. I dont know when that was, and I did look in the episode archives but couldnt find it.

We can get around the fields being open to interpretation by defining them. And it can still be called "Status" because we would just be changing the meaning martial status to character status. I say we have

Current regular and Former regular - those on/were on a regular contract like Peggy, Den
Current and former Recurring or semi regulars - not a main character, comes and goes, possibly no fixed contract like Sal
Guest - brought in for a brief period for a storyline alone like Michael Rawlins, would also include most of the minors I should think.GG ^Moan 00:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, do I have the go ahead for this?GG ^Moan 17:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good, I will be taking silence as a yes.GG ^Moan 00:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A silence ain't a yes. mate, the BBC website does it, man. Just do it. We need the website to be some nang page, you get me. The EastEnders website does statuses, and look at other soap characters site. EastEnders is the best website and coz of that, it needs stauses. You get me, listen to my reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Queen Victoria (talk • contribs) 18:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What Gungadin was talking about in July 2008 (!!!!!) was the "classification" field that was added. Status was removed by consensus later. You've seen the discussion, because you're The Twelfth Doctor. I shall block you now, because your status obsession confirms it. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 18:41, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]