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)

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)

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)

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)

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)