Forum:CT Archive/Character infobox changes (multiple votes)

Peoples, the character infobox as we know it has remained basically unchanged for a considerable amount of time. And while it does its job well, I think it's time to just tweak a few knobs here and there to improve the device. Here are a series of separate votes on separate elements of the character infobox. Please, for the love of God, do not create third options here...

Titles and ranks
At the moment, we have a massive redundancy in terms of presenting a character's name. We have the name of the article, the bolded name at the start of the intro, and then...a third time in the infobox. And it's not charming. To make that infobox name earn its keep, and to provide some more essential information to the reader at a glance, I think it would be prudent to list the last known rank or title of a given character. It wouldn't have to be directly sourced, obviously, since it will be in the prose, but I'll let the details of sourcing get worked out later. So, we'd go with "Admiral Firmus Piett," "Lord Shadowspawn," et cetera. When a character holds a comission and has another rank or title, well, it might be a matter open to debate, but I think it would be wise to go with what organization they've been involved in for longer, or what they're most widely recognized with...something like that. It might have to be case-by-case in those instances, but I don't think it will crop up often enough to be a problem. If it does, we just do another CT, and sort those things out. I've been doing it for a year or so anyway, and I've seen it used elsewhere.

Support

 * 1) Thefourdotelipsis 06:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) I'm all for this. Would nicknames count as titles/ranks, I'm assuming?   Trak Nar  Ramble on 06:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) I can see this working, but as you state there's times when it's a case-sensitive issue, such as with Revan.-- Goodwood [[Image:Redstarbird.svg|20px]] ( Alliance Intelligence ) 06:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Lord Hydronium 07:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) --Eyrezer 11:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) Per wood. Unit 8311 16:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Greyman  @wikia ( Talk ) 15:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Certainly not. Atarumaster88  [[Image:Jedi_Order.svg|20px]] ( Talk page ) 16:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Strong oppose. —Xwing328 (Talk) 18:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) This policy, if enacted, would cause new users to add every title into the designated field. It would be a mess. Grand Moff Tranner [[Image:Imperial Department of Military Research.svg|20px]] (Comlink) 19:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) This'll just cause more problems. For instance: is Anakin Skywalker's last title Darth Vader? Yrfeloran 22:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

 * To answer Trak Nar's question, nicknames, as far as I'm aware, find their way into the name field anyway. Thefourdotelipsis 06:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Would we just be adding the highest rank? Because for someone like Palpatine, that could get messy (it'd be Emperor for him).  Chack Jadson  (Talk) 22:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That's what I was talking about. You know there'll be someone who's going to add Senator and Supreme Chancellor. Actually, now that I think about it, I would support this if all the titles would be placed there. Scratch that. I changed my mind about that suggestion. Grand Moff Tranner [[Image:Imperial Department of Military Research.svg|20px]] (Comlink) 22:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Relations fields
We have a "master" and "apprentice" field already in the infobox, but it's struck me as odd that we don't have relations fields, for "parents" "siblings" "spouse" and "offspring". This one's fairly simple: We add those fields. It would be really helpful.

Support

 * 1) Thefourdotelipsis 06:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) I can get behind this one. -- Ozzel 06:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) I like it.   Trak Nar  Ramble on 06:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC) Now that I think about it...
 * 4) No more complicated than the master/apprentice fields. - Lord Hydronium 07:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Needlessly complicated.-- Goodwood [[Image:Redstarbird.svg|20px]] ( Alliance Intelligence ) 06:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Greyman  @wikia ( Talk ) 15:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Per wood. Unit 8311 16:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Very messy. I would, however, support a family field. (Clarification: A link to the family page, if it exists) —Xwing328 (Talk) 18:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) I agree with Xwing328. Grand Moff Tranner [[Image:Imperial Department of Military Research.svg|20px]] (Comlink) 19:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 6)  Chack Jadson  (Talk)  22:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments
Could get messy for giant families like the Darklighters. Yrfeloran 06:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Now that I think about it... I'm nixing my vote and remaining neutral.  While I can see the use for such a field, I can also see where it'd become a problem.   Trak Nar  Ramble on 06:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The same thing could be said for someone who taught many apprentices, like Anakin/Vader. Conversely, he has a small family. It shouldn't be too hard to follow. Thefourdotelipsis 07:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If we have all four we should make a new "Family" section for it. - Lord Hydronium 07:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Consolidating character templates
OK, we seem to have had this feature for several years now: Multiple character infoboxes, sorted by affiliation. And...the difference is...they're colour coded. That's cute and all, but I think we've progressed beyond the need to color code by affiliation. No other templates are split up like this, and I think it's best for consistency's sake. Also, the different infoboxes seem to invite argument more than anything else, as people sometimes can't seem to decide on just which one should be used. It's really unnecessary...we can easily do without it.

Support

 * 1) Thefourdotelipsis 06:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Part of what makes character articles different is the fact that they're so numerous and that they can be divided by affiliation so readily. The different styles are part of the site culture already; there is really no need to change this, IMHO.-- Goodwood [[Image:Redstarbird.svg|20px]] ( Alliance Intelligence ) 06:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Eh...the only problem I really see with this are the arguments, which are kinda stupid when it comes down to it (should Vergere's infobox be red or brown?). Other than that I rather like the color-coding for adding some style to articles. - Lord Hydronium 07:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) I think the colors are useful. You soon become familiar with them and tells you at a glance their affiliation (less than a glance even). --Eyrezer 11:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) I don't think it's unnecessary at all. I do like the colour-coding, for the reasons some have stated above. Greyman  @wikia ( Talk ) 15:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Per all above. Unit 8311 16:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) Certainly not Atarumaster88  [[Image:Jedi_Order.svg|20px]] ( Talk page ) 16:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) —Xwing328 (Talk) 18:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) Grand Moff Tranner [[Image:Imperial Department of Military Research.svg|20px]] (Comlink) 19:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments
A comment: the organization infoboxes also get color-coded, just through individually changing the colors rather than distinct templates. eg, Empire Reborn and Black Sun use the Imperial and criminal colors respectively. You want to get rid of the colors entirely though right? Not just manually modify them? --Eyrezer 06:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I suppose you could, if you wanted to, but it might complicate things. Thefourdotelipsis 06:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe all of these could be consolidated into one character template, where you define a single variable to select from the various color schemes we already have in existence. —Xwing328 (Talk) 18:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Booting the eras field
Seriously, this one makes no sense at all, and it's become so ingrained that we don't even question it anymore. The eras field is what I'm talking about here, and it's a prime subject for a game of "One of these things is not like the other." Because, unlike everything in the infobox, nay, the article bar the BTS, it links to an OOU article. I understand the intent, but with the eras tags up there, I just don't see the need. For consistency's sake, I think it could be removed, or the field should contain the IU eras instead, listed in Category:Time periods. And if there's no applicable time period, you could list the relevant intergalactic war or something. They're always having one. Or maybe the dominant galactic government at the time, which would probably be better still. Basically, we get this CT through, then we vote on just what we replace it with.

Support

 * 1) Thefourdotelipsis 06:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) I'm not sure what purpose they serve. - Lord Hydronium 07:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) I like this idea, considering how we have the eras templates at the top of the page. Atarumaster88  [[Image:Jedi_Order.svg|20px]] ( Talk page ) 16:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Get rid of these in IU templates, since we do have the eras tags. However, leave them in OOU templates such as Infobox Book. Don't replace with anything, because there are so many conflicting time periods. Don't put which government is dominant at the time either, because choosing one could be considered POV, especially during a time of war, etc. —Xwing328 (Talk) 18:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) -- Goodwood [[Image:Redstarbird.svg|20px]] ( Alliance Intelligence ) 06:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Greyman  @wikia ( Talk ) 15:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Unit 8311 16:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) They're helpful. And people don't automatically just know what eras the character lived in just by looking at icons. Grand Moff Tranner [[Image:Imperial Department of Military Research.svg|20px]] (Comlink) 19:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 5)  Chack Jadson  (Talk)  22:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Removal of bullets
This one's less important, and it's more an issue of aesthetics. Basically, we remove bullets from infoboxes and use  instead. It's just a lot neater and cleaner looking. And of course, this only applies to character infoboxes.

Support

 * 1) Thefourdotelipsis 06:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Again, needlessly complicated (for the templates at least) and the bullets do come in handy. I suppose it's a case of "red vs. blue" or "vertical vs. horizontal blinds."-- Goodwood [[Image:Redstarbird.svg|20px]] ( Alliance Intelligence ) 06:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) I actually like the bullets. I find 'em to be cleaner as they indicate listings better than just a   .  Less keystrokes to make a bullet, too.  >>;   Trak Nar  Ramble on 06:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) To me, I find that they help with visual organization. Again, that's just my opinion. Greyman  @wikia ( Talk ) 15:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Unit 8311 16:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Certainly not. Atarumaster88  [[Image:Jedi_Order.svg|20px]] ( Talk page ) 16:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) Per all the above. —Xwing328 (Talk) 18:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) Bullets organize the information easily. Grand Moff Tranner [[Image:Imperial Department of Military Research.svg|20px]] (Comlink) 19:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 8)  Chack Jadson  (Talk)  22:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)