Forum:Early infobox designs

Index → Panopticon → Early infobox designs

Spoilers are strongly policed here.
If this thread's title doesn't specify it's spoilery, don't bring any up.

I think there is a lot of potential for this Wiki: But there needs to be a wider range of InfoBox’s. I am looking into making them soon, anyone help… User:joker1138

Species infobox

Alright, I think the main sort of infobox you're looking for is a race/species infobox, so here goes:

{{{image}}}
{{{species name}}}
Appearance / Type:	{{{type}}}
Affiliated with:	{{{affiliation}}}
Home Planet:	{{{home planet}}}
Appearances:	{{{appearances}}}

How about it? ~ Ghelæ -talk-contribs 18:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

good idea! the name of the "type" could use a little finessing, though, as it seems vague. an "affiliated with" (other species or individual, if any) would seem useful, though. --***Stardizzy*** 18:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking about different colours, to make them all more distinguishable User:joker1138

How about now? ~ Ghelæ -talk-contribs 18:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Villain Infobox

Hows this for Villains! User:joker1138

{{{image}}}
{{{Villain name}}}
Race:	{{{race}}}
Home Planet:	{{{home planet}}}
Appearances:	{{{appearances}}}
Actor:	{{{actor}}}

I don't see the need for a villain template. in my opnion, they can just use the normal individal template. but re-occuring villains might perhaps get a special template of their own, if anyone favored that strongly. --***Stardizzy*** 19:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, villains can use the normal individual template. It would also be difficult in some cases to decide if a minor character is a villain or not, e.g. Arcturus from The Curse of Peladon--GingerM 18:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC).

New Templates

I will make a few….User:joker1138

Species

{{{image}}}
{{{Species name}}}
Appearance / Type:	{{{type}}}
Affiliated with:	{{{affiliation}}}
Homeworld:	{{{origin}}}
Appearances:	{{{appearances}}}

Alright, I've had a go at fixing this species one (which Joker made originally), so tell me what you think. ~ Ghelæ -talk-contribs 19:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by Affiliated with? And what is there going to be in Appearance/type that can't be shown by the picture or category? Azes13 20:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Affiliated with: e.g on an infobox on the Dalek they would be affilianted with the Dalek Empire, Parallel Earth Cybermen with Cybus Industries, etc. And appearance/type is just summing up, and it can also be used if a pic isn't availiable.

Other examples: Sea Devils, affiliated with the Silurians, also affiliated with the Master.--***Stardizzy*** 20:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Then wouldn't they all be affiliated with the Doctor?Azes13 20:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

No, affiliation in this sense is some kind of, well, positive relationship, many races would be enemies of the Doctor and not affiliated in this sense. ~ Ghelæ -talk-contribs 20:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

yes, but it would look pretty silly if you put the Doctor's name under affiliations. because half the species in the Whoniverse has either fought him or gotten helped by him. --***Stardizzy*** 20:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I'm just saying that what most of the species have in common. Azes13 20:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, apart from the TW and SJA species. But having only three things in affiliation, and all species having one, seems a bit stupid. So, no, not affiliation in that sense. ~ Ghelæ -talk-contribs 20:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I just thought perhaps something less specific than home planet. In some cases we just know the galaxy, the star system or region of space, in some cases they come from some other dimension. worth pointing out. perhaps, then, Origin, instead of home planet. if we know the home planet, obviously that can go in that field. --***Stardizzy*** 20:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, changed. ~ Ghelæ -talk-contribs 20:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

one more idea. "Place of Origin", which sounds a little less ambiguous. consensus says? --***Stardizzy*** 00:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, its already been created at template:Infobox Species so if you want you can just change it there... ~ Ghelæ -talk-contribs 08:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I think a Species box is long overdue, so this is great. However, I think the colour scheme could do with re-thinking. Dark green for the main title bar is fine but I think the green behind the rows below it should be much paler (in keeping with the story info box style). Also, can I suggest that whenever photos are added to the infoboxes that they are set to a standard 250px width. This makes the whole thing much neater with the picture fitting the frame properly. Hope you don't mind this input.--Mantrid 09:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I've no problem with the colour scheme, as anybody can just edit the template for that, but the problem with the pic size is that I've done about 50 edits with them all 200px, so... you can change the colour scheme for now, we can resize the pictures later but for now an average standard of 200px (inbetween 150px for some like the Foamasi pics, and 250 for perhaps some others). Is that alright for now? ~ Ghelæ -talk-contribs 10:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'd suggest that from this point onwards the images are all set at 250px. We can go back and fix the others later. The original infobox (on which these new ones are based) was designed to have pictures at 250px width. --Mantrid 13:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, okay, well I've started doing some 250px, but some look better as 200px or 150px (occasionally some with even 200px look far too big). ~ Ghelæ -talk-contribs 14:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you mean that some look better at a smaller width. Do you mean because of the image length? I do think it's important to be consistant for the wiki to have a cohesive, uniform look. --Mantrid 14:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I suppose, but there are probably more things that need to be doing first that are more important than pic sizes in infoboxes. Some articles, for example, use the (DW: Episode link here) style of citation, some use the ("Episode like here") style of citation, and some use the style, first found in some of the earlier pages, which cites the episode within the main text. If you get what I mean. ~ Ghelæ -talk-contribs 14:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Time Lords

I Like the first one better. hows this for the Time lords & Compainons, anyone who isnt a villain. also i think the 'Actor' line should be dropped User:Joker1138

{{{image}}}
{{{Time Lord / Traveler}}}
Race:	{{{race}}}
Home Planet:	{{{home planet}}}
Appearances:	{{{appearances}}}
Affiliated with:	{{{affiliation}}}

No, it'd be better if there was one for Time Lord and one for companion, however even witha villain infobox as well, some charactors cannot be easily told whether they are villains or not, and some may even be a combination (e.g the Master was both a villain and a Time Lord). ~ Ghelæ -talk-contribs 19:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Occupation should over-rule Race; this box could be for companions, so if they were evil in the end then villain replaces it, Species can have pages for races, say Time lords, but on the Masters page it should be Villain, im I making sense (??) User:joker1138

You'd make more sense if you were using correct grammar, but I think I get it: If the person was a villain, the villain box is used whether or not they were a companion. I still think that in many cases it's ambiguous, so that the individuals infobox should be used - plus, if you have all these boxes, what use is the individuals infobox? ~ Ghelæ -talk-contribs 19:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

personally think that Time Lords can use the normal kind of individual infobox. Companions and the Doctor get a special deal because of their importance in DOCTOR WHO and the fact that we generally know more about them. --***Stardizzy*** 19:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

If you need to know more about companions, just read the articles (which are logically going to be bigger), but I think they'd have the same traits as other characters. Also, there's too much generic morality to be using villain boxes. Turlough immediately comes to mind. Azes13 20:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but if you are suggesting that we have an infobox for Doctor and companions, should we have one for Torchwood staff too, or Sarah Jane's companions? If not, then this is just a point that we don't need so many infoboxes as proposed on this page (which it is anyway). ~ Ghelæ -talk-contribs 20:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Doubt it. At best you could take out their home time period and maybe planet (unless they add in more time travel to the spin offs). Azes13 20:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Basically, my point is, that for individuals we should just have the individual infobox, for organisations an organisation infobox and for races and species a species infobox. ~ Ghelæ -talk-contribs 20:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

And maybe planets. And stop editing so fast, I can't keep up. Azes13 20:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Companions have their kind of infobox already, though I don't know what make those infoboxes "special". --***Stardizzy*** 20:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Individual

The Individual, close to the one above and Companions and the Doctor get a special deal because of their importance in DOCTOR WHO and the fact that we generally know more about them. good idea. the one above can be that and this is the normal one, sound ok User:joker1138

not to beat this horse, to death, but as mentioned above, companions have their own kind of infobox already. --***Stardizzy*** 20:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

{{{image}}}
{{{Individual}}}
Race:	{{{race}}}
Home Planet:	{{{home planet}}}
Appearances:	{{{appearances}}}
Actor:	{{{actor}}}

We already have an Individual infobox anyway. ~ Ghelæ -talk-contribs 20:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok what elce is needed. User:joker1138

Current consensus

Ok, it seems to me that this is the current concensus:

• Companions, villains, etc can just use the individual infobox.
• Species, planets, organisations and technological objects can get new infoboxes.

Am I right? Or is there any more discussion needed about these? ~ Ghelæ -talk-contribs 20:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Above look great to me. Individual objects should get their own template. Vehicles and/or spacecraft, too, perhaps --***Stardizzy*** 20:17, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, added. ~ Ghelæ -talk-contribs 20:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I dunno about the objects infobox, but vehicles sounds good. Azes13 20:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The objects one is technological, so, for example, a flying saucer could be an object type=spacecraft. ~ Ghelæ -talk-contribs 20:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Are we keeping the original infobox’s or changing to the new one. And should the Time Lord / Traveller infobox just be for the Doctor. User:joker1138

The original infobox seems good. I still don't see a use for the Doctor Traveler infobox.

Ok how do we finalise the Templates. User:joker1138

We'll create them in a bit. ~ Ghelæ -talk-contribs 20:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Alright, so far I've created Infobox Species and Infobox Object. Any thoughts? ~ Ghelæ -talk-contribs 21:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

There Looking Good :) User:joker1138

Alright, I go put them on some articles then. ~ Ghelæ -talk-contribs 08:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Individual robots

Ought we list them as Individuals, Objects, both or make up a new infobox? --***Stardizzy*** 18:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I think we can count robots as individuals, like androids, because they're usually developed and treated like characters as opposed to objects in episodes/novels etc.--GingerM 18:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Book character infobox?

a vistor added a biography of Roz Forrester (thank you for doing that, by the way) and put in a new infobox template for novel-derived characters? what do we think about books for non-televised media having their own special kind of infobox? --***Stardizzy*** 12:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I personally don't believe that there's any need for different infoboxes for TV and novel characters, they're still individuals, and besides, too many infoboxes can be excessive. ~ Ghelæ -talk-contribs 16:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

request: "also known as" space on a few infoboxes

even though I have figured out how to change the color of infoboxes and to alter the text I wonder if someone would add an additional field to both the Indivdual box and the Species box., namely, an "also known as" or "alias" space such which the Astronomical Object infoboxes already have. it would just make things so much simpler in a lot of cases. such as Menoptra versus Menoptera, characters who have gone by multiple names, etc. actually, just in case, the Object infobox could also use such an "also known as" space. thanks in advance. --***Stardizzy*** 21:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

As another point, could we also have an optional "language" space on the species infobox? I'd put both of the two ideas in the infobox code, but I don't know how... ~ Ghelæ -talk-contribs 09:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

ah, I didn't create the extra fields, I aske for someone to create it for me, since I couldn't figure out how to do it myself. a language field would seem like a good idea, actually.

--***Stardizzy*** 15:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

New fields for Species

okay, so three new fields:

• Also known as
• Referenced in (in case an alien gets mentioned in a story but never seen, or never seen at all)
• Language(s) --***Stardizzy*** 21:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Why languages? The only species that I can think of that have a named language is Sycorax. The rest are just assumed to be a speaking a different language, which isn't actually named. Azes13 02:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

mmm, so that when articles come up about Gallifreyan or Dalek script, etc. that the boxes can link to them. probably not a lot of call though for it, I agree.--***Stardizzy*** 03:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Some species communicate via telepathy, which could perhaps count as a language... sort of... ~ Ghelæ -talk-contribs 15:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Bit of a stretch... Azes13 15:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

it just eliminates wear and tear on my Poor Fingers® to type stuff like "they use telepathy", so I would go with Ghelæ. I vote for including it, on that basis alone. the other fields haven't created controversy, though, so would someone with the technical knowledge add at least the Referenced In and Also Known As fields? --***Stardizzy*** 16:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Plus, affiliation should also be optional, as many have "Unknown" or just are blank at the moment. ~ Ghelæ -talk-contribs 16:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

New fields for Individuals

• Also known as
• Referenced in

--***Stardizzy*** 21:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Other infoboxes

Should we also have organisation/government and rank infoboxes? Or any others, perhaps? ~ Ghelæ -talk-contribs 16:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

We should definitely have infoboxes for:

• Organizations
• Government (examples; nation-states, galactic empires, etc.)
  • Sphere of influence (global, galactic, cosmic, etc.)
  • Type (monarchy, democracy, etc.)
  • Leader
  • Origin (planet or nation)
  • Time period
  • Appearances
  • Mentions
• Religious orders
  • Founder
  • Time period of foundation
  • Origin
  • Object of worship
• Corporations
  • Image (corporation logo)
  • Owner
  • Planet
  • Time period
  • Products/services
  • Appearances
  • Mentions
• UNIT personnel
  • Rank/Title
  • Division (UK or wherever)
  • Status (i.e. Active/Retired/Dead/Unknown/Other)
• Torchwood personnel
  • Title
  • Skills/speciality
  • Status (i.e. Active/Retired/Dead/Unknown/Other)
• Dalek Faction
  • Image (typical member)
  • Leader
  • Appearances
  • Mentions
• Dalek variant
  • Image
  • Appearances
  • Mentions
• Reality/dimension
  • Image
  • Type
  • Adjacent to (example: E-Space. adjacent to N-Space)
  • Inhabitants
  • Appearances
  • Mentions
• Timeline
  • Divergence point (i.e. UK goes fascist)
  • Still exists? (Yes, No, Unknown)
  • Appearances
  • Mentions

--***Stardizzy*** 06:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)