Template talk:Infobox Individual

	Archives: #1

partner killed by design?

Recently, I saw a field "partner" being used for the cases of intimate relationships that are not marriages (see, for instance, Charlie Smith. It seems that this functionality has disappeared. I'm just wondering if that was a collateral of some other changes or a conscious deletion? Amorkuz ☎ 20:26, April 24, 2017 (UTC)

Returned to infobox. Thanks for catching it!
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  02:50: Tue 23 May 2017

Phrasing

Maybe “More behind the scenes” stuff should be changed to “Another behind the scenes moment” to make it more formal.{{raw:w:papi}} 11:10, August 16, 2017 (UTC)

"First seen in" phrasing?

Right now, there are three variables in this template regarding appearances:

• "first", which renders in the infobox as "First seen in"
• "only", which renders in the infobox as "Appearance"
• "appearances", which renders in the infobox as "Appearances"

One of these things is not like the other! While "first" is an indispensable part of the infobox, phrasing it as "First seen in" really only makes sense for TV and comic stories: nobody is "seen" in a prose or audio. Changing it to "First appearance" would only add three characters (making it the same length as "Main voice actor") and remove this weird ambiguity. Could this be changed here and in other infoboxes with the same variable? – N8 (☎/👁️) 15:58, February 20, 2020 (UTC)

I concur with N8. Now that it's been pointed out, "First appearance" would be vastly more appropriate. Epsilon the Eternal ☎ 01:01, September 9, 2020 (UTC)

Done!. Really a straightforward application of T:NPOV. And even within visual media, a character will sometimes "appear" as a disembodied voice, occasionally because they don't have a physical form in the first place; that's still their first appearance, but they're not seen. Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 17:21, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Pets

Something of an odd request, but would it be at all possible for a new section of this infobox to be added, for pets? I ask this, as many individuals in the DWU have pets, and I think it would be a useful section. Epsilon the Eternal ☎ 01:01, September 9, 2020 (UTC)

Done!. Suggestion has been here a while and seems to make sense with no drawbacks. There's certainly value in being able to directly link Fifi from Helen A's infobox and so on. Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 17:21, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

New field proposals

Recently, I've been thinking about some new fields for this template, which are for aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, and birth and death dates. These should be useful additions to the template, if anybody could please add them.

Epsilon 📯 📂

15:14, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

These sound basically reasonable, but it occurs to me that if we add aunts and uncles, we might as well also add in cousins. After all, in certain accounts, cousins are the only type of family relationships that exist within certain major DWU species outside of special cases. Thoughts, anyone? Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 17:21, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Good catch! Yeah, the addition of cousins would be welcome.

Epsilon 📯 📂

17:31, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Lending my support for these variables, as I could see immediate uses for them. – n8 (☎) 17:11, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

OK, good! I think we can see our way forward to implementation, I'll see what I can d within the next few days. Possibly sooner. Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 18:02, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Hahahahaha. Possibly sooner. Haha. Ha. I'm so sorry. Done now. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 23:18, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

New fields for fictional characters

Been looking at sprucing up the pages for some of the fictional characters within the DWU and wondered if some extra fields could be added to this to make it more suitable. We currently have a "made by" field which doesn't exactly sound right for fictional characters - I was thinking perhaps a "created by" field. And then perhaps fields for both "franchise" and "work of origin"? 66 Seconds ☎ 23:05, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

This sounds reasonable. Relatedly, I'd also appreciate "type" and "used by" fields, since I've been thinking about how we could better suit The Doctor's TARDIS, who has relatives but also a user. – n8 (☎) 17:11, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Sounds good to me also, same reply a above. However, @Nate, as you'll recall, a lengthy thread concluded that the TARDIS should keep an {{Infobox Object}}, even if she might technically be an individual as well as an object; I'm not necessarily in personal agreement with that ruling, but T:BOUND very much applies. The non-T:BOUND-violating way forward, here, would instead be to add relatives and "played by" variables to the Object infobox, not the reverse. Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 18:02, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Fields for fictional characters sounds like a genuinely useful addition. I put up my hand in support.

Epsilon📯 📂

18:55, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Can see there is support for this, though it hasn't moved since 2021. If we have agreement, would it be possible for an admin to add the fields? Thanks in advance. 66 Seconds ☎ 16:43, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Done. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 23:18, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Extra "slots" for Affiliations in Infobox Individual

Could we perhaps add an extra slot for affiliations in infoboxes for individuals? I've been trying to add four affiliates to the infobox on Davros (Unbound Universe) - the Kaleds, Thal Empire, and Daleks of the Unbound Universe, as well as the Quatch Empire, but I can only add up to three affiliates in the infobox, nor can I find some workaround to get all four to display without the infobox displaying it as the code. Although we could choose to swap out, say, Kaled (Unbound Universe) for Quatch Empire, given that the latter's not in the infobox currently, and Davros' affiliation with the Kaleds is arguably the least significant of the four, it would still be more accurate if we could include all four affiliates in the same infobox. Thalek Prime Overseer ☎ 17:17, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

This appears to have been done at some point. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 23:18, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Cite source

The "first" variable currently wraps its contents in ''[[|]]''. Could we also have a "first cs" variable which wraps it in {{cs|}}?

I think this might do it, but it would need testing:

<data source="first mention cs"><label>First mentioned in:</label><format>{{cite source|first mention::{{{first mention}}}}}</format></data>

<data source="first cs"><label>First appearance:</label><format>{{cite source|first appearance::{{{first}}}}}</format></data>

<data source="only cs"><label>Appearance:</label><format>{{cite source|first appearance::{{{only}}}}}</format></data>

– n8 (☎) 15:34, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Sure, I'll add it now. Bongo50 ☎ 15:46, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be be easier to just let regular Wiki text in? That we we can include the prefix and the extra information you can add to cite source, like part numbers, editions, etc etc etc.

EPSILON^🔎 |📯|📂|📦|📝

15:48, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

And this should be mentioned in Forum:Where to use cite source, a thread that does need wrapping up soon.

EPSILON^🔎 |📯|📂|📦|📝

15:49, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

No, it would not be easier to just let regular wikitext in due to the SMW data collection that occurs in these fields. I can add a workaround to allow that additional information to be included. Bongo50 ☎ 16:44, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

So long as the info can be added.

EPSILON^🔎 |📯|📂|📦|📝

16:52, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Nevermind, my original idea for a workaround didn't work. I'll go back to the drawing board and, if I cna't think of anything better, I do have a very inelligant solution I can use if it comes to it. Bongo50 ☎ 16:56, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Navigation

I was thinking it might be quite handy to have navigation fields like in {{Infobox Story}}, for such things as Time Lord incarnations and reigning monarchs and such. So for example, one navigation field on Tenth Doctor could be "Incarnations of the Doctor", and the "previous" tab would link to Ninth Doctor, and the "next" tab would link to Eleventh Doctor. With controversial information it should probably be left blank, which I suppose in some cases would rather defeat the purpose of a navigation system, but still I think it would be a useful thing to have. Aquanafrahudy 📢 🖊️ 16:38, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

I feel the {{doctors}} box already fulfils this purpose. As you say, controversial information would probably complicate matters. BlueSupergiant ☎ 16:50, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

"Next" / "previous" serves a different function to a navbox, allowing ease of movement between ordered pages, as opposed to just displaying related pages; and I think it could be a useful addition. Controversial information doesn't necessarily make this a bad idea, but it is worth considering cases where it may become complicated. For example, there may be a case where the exact ordering of monarchs is disputed in given sources, either through differing accounts of future monarchs or historical errors or intentionally alternative histories. In these cases we could just allow several "next" / "previous" navigations, the same as we do with infobox story. Problem solved? Also there's the different Ninth Doctors for which we could, again, have multiple navigation buttons, or potentially just link to The Doctor's ninth incarnation, etc. It may require some thought, but this is definitely something which could work. Danochy ☎ 06:15, 18 March 2024 (UTC)