Template talk:Infobox soap character

Re-order

Been thinking about this for a few weeks as I believe it would improve the layout of the infobox. Since we deprecated the home and residence parameters, the only common usage within the "Profile" subsection is of the alias and occupation parameters, if not just occupation. It feels unnecessary to have just 1-2 parameters under a section, as it adds an extra purple header and increases the length of the infobox. I'd like to propose that species and breed are moved to the higher part of the infobox, as these are real-life attributes to an animal actor. Then with alias and occupation, I propose that they are moved above the family parameters under a newly named "In-universe information" section that is collapsible for desktop users. It would look similar to the character infobox but with all of the parameters that the soap WikiProject need. Thoughts? – Meena • 00:34, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

And: I'm also a fan of the character infobox's placement of "— character". I think it's better placed in small above the image as opposed to in a purple line underneath. If we were to align with that, it would eliminate another purple line and save room in the infobox. – Meena • 00:38, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

• Slight support. I definitely would agree that something needs to be done about the profile section, as all it is used for now is occupation, so a large thick purple banner just adds extra space. As for moving the "soap opera character" banner, I think it is placed fine the way it is. I would also agree to moving species and breed up. However, the issue with moving alias and occupation under an in-universe section is that this new section would just be dominated by family parameters, which may be seen as another issue. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 08:38, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

I understand your point about the relatives being the main chunk of "In-universe information" but that's not a concern for me. If the section remains collapsible as it is right now, then I feel it's best for all in-show information to be in one section and the real-world information to be displayed first. – Meena • 09:10, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

• Support. You're right. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 09:39, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

• @Meena I am in full support, I was actually thinking about this too what a coincidence! Although if you are considering in universe information would you also consider the home box being re added since that is also in universe, also how about a 'full name' section? A lot of articles have it and I have been removing per WP:FANCRUFT although if you are considering having in universe added, this could be useful. What are other’s thoughts? Blanchey 💬 • 📝 19:03, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Blanchey, I would still be opposed to the reintroduction of the home parameter. Despite me proposing an "In-universe information" section, I'm trying to keep fictional info that really matters most since an infobox should be strictly crucial info.

I would fully support re-adding the home parameter if this in-universe section would be incorporated and, in my opinion, the home parameter is as important as the occupation parameter. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 22:35, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

I 100% do NOT support reinstating the home/residence parameter.— TAnthony^Talk 16:12, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Agreed on that. We reached a consensus to remove it and just because it's in-universe information does not mean it has to be included, otherwise that could open all sorts of doors. What next, including their dead goldfish under a "pets" parameter because it's technically in-universe info lol? – Meena • 16:48, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

• Support: As the creator of this template 100 years ago, lol, I like Meena's suggested changes, and am willing to implement them when we have consensus. I also do like the idea of moving the show name out of a heading and above the photo.— TAnthony^Talk 19:28, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

• Support as I think this would be a great idea as it is a bit strange having a section with only 1/2 parameters (or none at all at times). I would also slightly support re-adding the home section if an "in-universe" section is added (or residence) if it is collapsable. Regarding the full name bit - I think that would be good, but I think if not the full name/middle names etc can be added to the lead if not mentioned in the infobox, because A.) some can say that excluding middle names suggest that the characters do not have one and thus misleads viewers and B.) IPs are going to be adding them everywhere anyway and it will just create chaos, so I think either having a full name parameter or just including them in the lead very quickly (e.g. "X *middle name* Y is a character from XYZ")DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 16:44, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

I've updated the template as discussed in my sandbox. Four votes of support and none against seems like consensus to me, but since it's only been two days I can wait a bit longer to implement the changes. I did not restore the home/residence parameter or add a "full name" in my current edit. Thanks.— TAnthony^Talk 16:51, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

@TAnthony: Has classification always been so low on the infobox? It feels oddly placed under crossover, books, etc but maybe I just never noticed it was so low until now? – Meena • 17:00, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi Meena, that parameter was added by others within the last few years so I don't know anything about the placement. Looking now, it seems like it would fit better after introducer (another parameter I didn't add, and actually hate) and before the spin-off items. What do you think?— TAnthony^Talk 17:05, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

I have issues regarding the introducer parameter too. But yes, I'd agree with that placement for classification. – Meena • 17:14, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Actually what about placement after "last appearance" and before creator. I'm not sure what "appeared on" and "appeared in" are for since they're not noted in the documentation.— TAnthony^Talk 17:30, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

The 'appears' parameters are for characters who only appeared in 1 episode with 'on' and 'in' for different formats, eg "Appeared in Episode 7476" or "Appeared on 17 July 2022". So maybe the classification could be listed after "Appears in"? – Meena • 17:56, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Keep both the appears in/on parameters. Some soaps use the episodes and some use the dates, so removing either will cause issues. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 23:00, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes I wasn't suggesting we remove them, I just couldn't remember what they are for. I'll add them to my draft of the template documentation.— TAnthony^Talk 20:21, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

TAnthony, as the template creator, you may have an answer for this – has there ever been a discussion into the infobox colour? I've never thought much into it but the classic purple is the same as a lot of other templates on Wikipedia; is there a reason for this? – Meena • 19:25, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Originally, individual colors were chosen on a show by show basis, but this discussion (linked in template documentation) changed the guideline.— TAnthony^Talk 20:57, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

@TAnthony: For some reason, some occupation parameters are not displaying, such as in Felicity Higgins and Sian Caton. Do you know why this may be the case? Also, I think we should re-make the "soap character" part a long purple bar like it used to be. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 23:03, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Disagree on the "soap opera character" going back to a purple bar. It looks cleaner and eliminates unneeded space from the infobox. It's also in a better place since it immediately tells the reader that they are a fictitious character from a certain series. – Meena • 08:27, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Oh and re the occupation issue, I've noticed this too on infoboxes where the only "in-universe information" is their occupation, such as Deborah Kovak. – Meena • 10:46, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I think this discussion should have been left open for longer before the changes were made. It also doesn't appear to have been posted to WP:SOAPS or similar Wikiprojects, which would have allowed more editors to join in. This seems like such a small group of editors deciding some big changes that affect thousands of articles... - JuneGloom07 Talk 17:32, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

This can easily be discussed further or reverted, but these are not huge changes. Let me look at the occupations issue.— TAnthony^Talk 19:58, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Display issue  Fixed.— TAnthony^Talk 20:15, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm not going to oppose the changes, but ask for some tweaks. I don't agree with hiding away all the in-universe info with the family members, as it's making some drop down sections quite long for those who have multiple occupations, relatives, plus other names, etc. But if it has to be hidden, then there should be a border or a line separating that info from the family members. Right now, there's no distinction between the two and it all blends into one. Also, taking another look at it, what is really separating this infobox from Template:Infobox character at this point? I foresee another merge discussion in the future... - JuneGloom07 Talk 23:15, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm totally open to further tweaks and discussion. But there is actually a huge difference between this template and {{Infobox character}}, which is that the generic infobox only has four relationship parameters: |spouse=, |significant other=, |children= and |relatives=. The fact that this soap template has over 20 possible options (which we need) is the reason we made the relationship section collapsible in the first place. I don't think the addition of the alias/occupation fields makes a huge difference in the expanded length of soap character infoboxes, which tend to have dozens of relations listed anyway (look at Victoria Lord and "small" infobox Robert Scorpio). I also don't see an issue with the alias/occupation fields getting jumbled with relationships, it's all in-universe info and is no more disparate than the various items in the upper part of the infobox. And a merge is unlikely because the generic template just doesn't need all those parameters, and we really do.— TAnthony^Talk 15:53, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm also not a fan of all the in-universe information being stored into the drop down section. JuneGloom07 has explained it well - it all blends and just doesn't look as readable. I think the position of the non-family in-universe information either needs reverting to its previous position or distinctly separated from the family members. Soaper1234 - talk 21:46, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

A thin line like those used in Template:Infobox musical artist would be ideal to separate the info. - JuneGloom07 Talk 23:47, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

I can put in a line so we can see how it works, but I'm kind of confused about the reasoning. We're talking about 2-3 parameters: I really don't see how it's blended, jumbled or unreadable. In-universe relationship information is not different than other in-universe information like names or occupation.— TAnthony^Talk 00:27, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Years in caption

There seems to be a lot of edit warring (to clarify - not including me) on Sam Mitchell (EastEnders) over whether captions should include years or not (e.g. Kim Medcalf as Sam Mitchell (2022)). Over the years, I have editted both UK (and Australian and NZ) and American soaps and it has seemed like some American soap operas editors have been against it. Per the infobox it is NOT prohibited but it also NOT recommended - it is not included. So I thought we should decide here once and for all.

Personally - I think that years in captions are a good idea as soap opera characters often spend years (and often decades) on soaps, and thus the years can be useful in determining when the picture is taken, especially for screenshots. Soap opera pictures vary: some articles update their pictures every years whilst others don't or use the picture from the characters' initial/biggest stint (such as a lot of the Neighbours characters, which I agree with), but this confusing for readers wondering why a character looks vastly different/older from the wikipedia picture, especially if it is decades old and they assume that the pictures are the most recent. Additionally, soap operas are an outlier in not stating years as most celebrities/real people have the years next to their infobox image (other with other information such "X in July 2019 at X festival", but I do not recommend we do that).

Please remember to be civil and kind everyone! :) DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 17:42, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Pinging some soap editors - Meena, JuneGloom07, Raintheone, Soaper1234, Livelikemusic, U-Mos and Jester66. Feel free to ping anyone else! :) DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 17:45, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Further point - whilst you can see the information of when the screenshots were taken on some infoboxes images, 1.) not all images have this information and 2.) many wikipedia readers will not know how to do this/that that information is there if they click on the image and scroll down to the details) DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 17:51, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

I assume the IP's edit summary "Per Template:Infobox soap character we do NOT include years or any other caption but this" refers to the bit in Template:Infobox_soap_character#Formatting that gives a sample caption. I wrote that particular part in 2014, and I can assure you that the sample was to illustrate the use of less words when possible, not a prohibition to adding additional information that is deemed useful by editors, like a date or other contextual info. I agree with DaniloDaysOfOurLives that dates are helpful and probably preferable, when available, so the documentation should be updated to reflect that their use is OK. Thanks.— TAnthony^Talk 19:30, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

I take no issue with the years being included in the infobox. There has been cracking down on lengthy image captions in infoboxes but this has been more of a BLP issue than soaps. I think a note should potentially be added to the template stating that adding a year to the caption is optional? – Meena • 22:37, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree with the above message by Meena. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 23:40, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't see any issue with years included in infobox captions. Soaper1234 - talk 13:55, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

I am very glad that everyone (so far) has no issue with adding a year to the caption 😊 Maybe "years can be added" could be put on? Or "years are recommended if the character has a long duration" or something? I am just nervous of editors edit warring over whether they believe a year should be added or not...DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 21:53, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

No issue with including/keeping years in captions (for images that need them). Some editors really will war over the smallest of things though. 🙄 - JuneGloom07 Talk 22:20, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

It's true :( DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 23:10, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Image size changes?

Where was it discussed about changing the default image size in the infobox? Surely a change like this should have been discussed, no? livelikemusic (TALK!) 02:20, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

I was actually wondering the same thing... @Goszei:, could you please explain your reasoning towards this? :) DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 02:49, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

My reasoning was consistency with similar infoboxes, such as Template:Infobox character and Template:Infobox comics character. I have reversed the change, pending further discussion. — Goszei (talk) 04:21, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

I personally believe that the default image size should be 200. That's the size that the majority of soap editors use when implementing an image into infoboxes. I've known there to be other similar sizes used, but 200 is most common in my experience. – Meena • 09:19, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Personally, I don't mind either way. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 10:29, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

200px appears too visually small and leaves excess empty space — which visually appears unflattering — especially when the default has been 240px for quite some time. What about a middle ground of 220px? livelikemusic (TALK!) 17:19, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Honestly, I think it is a case by case basis, so whichever the default size is it should not be too much of an issue as it can be amended for each page. 200 suits some character pages better than 240, and vice versa, depending on various factors (e.g. whether image is a rectangle or square and how zoomed in it is). I think 210 is a good idea. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 17:41, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

If the consensus is for a default size of 210px–220px, I recommend restoring my edit, as it matches Wikipedia's default thumbnail width of 220px. Thoughts? — Goszei (talk) 05:00, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Except, judging from test previews, the "default" you had was 200px (which is visually too small). livelikemusic (TALK!) 14:45, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

I have copied my edit to Template:Infobox soap character/sandbox; testing it out by previewing articles with the sandbox instead of the live version gives me a width of 220px (when there's no imagesize parameters). Perhaps you have your default thumbnail width set to 200px in Preferences > Appearance? My edit matches whatever the user has that set to. — Goszei (talk) 03:12, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

I didn't even know we could change our default size. I checked and my setting is set at 250px. livelikemusic (TALK!) 01:40, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

2023–present

There is constant edit wars between editors removing/readding "–present" when 2023 is the current year. The argument is currently logic based, as everyone knows that 2023 is the present - and therefore "2023–present" lacks truth as it claims that 2023 is not the present. It would be better if we could get a sentence added to the infobox documentation about this, to have as an actual consensus and linking point to use when reverting editors. Are there any conflicting opinions on this, or likewise, any support? – Meena • 15:43, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I always thought everyone knew current year–present was wrong, and that "–present" was added once we turned the New Year, especially where marriages are concerned (I've been using {{Marriage}} to counteract that). Also, it is worth mentioning several editors continue to WP:IGNORE MOS:DATETOPRES and continue to write YYYY– instead of YYYY–present. That seems problematic, as well. Perhaps this should be mentioned, in accordance of the MOS. livelikemusic (TALK!) 14:08, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

I prefer the use of the marriage template too, especially in cases of "curent year–present". I would be in favour of adding a sentence about the MOS:DATETOPRES rule alongside "current year–present", as I've enforced it for a while whenever I notice a violation, so to have it in the infobox documentation would be beneficial. – Meena • 17:14, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Changes

Some changes have just been made to the infobox without consensus. I think that they should be reverted as there was no consensus at all. The main feature reverted was the in universe info being collapsible, which is now no longer is. Per MOS:DONTHIDE, it says that information can be collapsible if the information is "supplementary". Also, personally I do not like how it is all split up - personally to me it makes it harder to read, but I am not sure. Regardless, I think it should be reverted until a consensus is found. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 13:26, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree that the in-universe information should remain as collapsible. On MOS:DONTHIDE: "A few infoboxes also use pre-collapsed sections for infrequently accessed details". Gonnym, where was your consensus for this change? – Meena • 14:01, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

You are missing the entire section of the guideline. The entire section talks about not using it. If you look at any of the dozen or so fiction-related infoboxes, none of them use this. If you feel that information in the infoboxes needs to be hidden, then the elephant in the room you are ignoring is that maybe that information does not belong in the infobox. Gonnym (talk) 14:03, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

1.) You don't need to be rude 😞 We are not "missing the point", we are raising our concerns and we were not rude about it.

2.) This is not something we have been ignoring, this has been something that has been discussed A LOT over the years.

3.) Regardless, such a big change should have been discussed beforehand. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 14:16, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Pinging some soap editors to discuss this: JuneGloom07, Raintheone, Soaper1234, U-Mos, TAnthony, etc DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk)

Hi Gonnym, this functionality was introduced because of articles like Victoria Lord. This infobox template was split off from the primary template because with decades-long series, characters tend to have an inordinate amount of spouses, children and relatives. And while some of these connections may border on trivial, the Project has found that in general they are helpful for both understanding where characters fit into the narrative and for navigation. And FYI to the group, Gonnym is a respected longtime editor I have worked with for over a decade, and if we like it or not, they are correct that policy and guidelines have evolved since this template was created (including collapsibility) in 2007. Gonnym, do you think the uncollapsed infobox in Victoria Lord negatively impacts readability?— TAnthony^Talk 15:00, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

I have NEVER said that any editor here is not well respected or incorrect - I was saying that this should have been discussed before, so please do not get angry at me!DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 15:48, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not mad at all, I just don't think Gonnym was being rude. :) — TAnthony^Talk 20:07, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

I think this should have been discussed first to avoid any issues. Countless articles now have a big infobox impaled through the main text of the article. Quote boxes and free-use images with captions gets shunted around and boxed in. Collapsing the info confined the infobox to the lead. It improved readability using the desktop version. MOS:DONTHIDE does not state you cannot use the collapsing feature. It advises against it in instances it could harm accessibility. I do not believe collapsing the in-universe aspect of the infobox did any harm. Victoria Lord demonstrates how the infobox can flow down into the text and make it look very untidy. Paul Robinson (Neighbours) is another. To address the so called elephant - other fictional character infoboxes are unlikely to generate as much baggage in an infobox. Some of these characters appear for 30+ years on a daily basis and chew through endless stories. A fictional character from a game, film or run of the mill drama series may not.Rain the 1 18:49, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Look, I actually created this template and included more parameters and the collapsing functionality by consensus within the Project. In 2007. At that time, many soap character articles contained literal lists of relations (including "friends", "lovers", "enemies" "crimes committed", LOL). Anyway, {{Infobox character}} had limited relationship parameters and it soon became clear that including even key relationships in the infobox created some really long ones, sometimes longer than the body of text in a Start class article. Collapsibility was a thing in some other prominent templates and it seemed like a good solution. A lot of global changes to the MOS have occurred in the intervening 16 years, and while I don't know the evolution of MOS:DONTHIDE, it's a thing now and should be taken seriously. I don't believe Gonnym thought this would be a controversial change (they're not the impulsive type), but it also doesn't seem like a big deal to leave the change active while we discuss it. It will help us find examples of how this change may negatively affect readability. Anyway, I like the collapsing feature and think it's appropriate here, but we're in a bubble. I've always said that many editors typically uninvolved with soap-related articles would have a stroke if they saw the number of relationships parameters this infobox has! We need to be open to constructive criticism from the "outside world". Thanks!— TAnthony^Talk 20:07, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

And you know what, I'm now looking at Victoria Lord and Paul Robinson (Neighbours) on a relatively small MacBook screen and honestly, the uncollapsed boxes look fine.— TAnthony^Talk 20:12, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

It does not look fine on the desktop version that the majority of us edit significantly with. I do not think Gonnym believed it would be controversial either. They were only trying to do what seemed correct and have only done a good job at maintaining the template recently. It has created some problems which I already addressed. I recall those all those parameters.. They were fancruft and myself and others spent years trying to remove them. I have long been open to the "outside world" on here because I do not edit in some soap opera fancruft bubble you are suggesting we are contributing in. If it had been an accessibility issue since 2007, I would have assumed someone would have already complained for change. But that did not happen so maybe the uncontroversial outcome here is to keep it how it has been since 2007.Rain the 1 20:46, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Just my little opinion - infoboxes are allowed to be massive but I did prefer it when just the family part was collapsed and the rest wasn't, because that's often the biggest part in this inforbox and is also probably infrequently accessed. — 🌼📽️AnemoneProjectors💬 22:12, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Do we have consensus to restore the collapsible feature? 4 editors have supported its return, 1 has been on the fence and 1 has opposed it. – Meena • 12:36, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

I echo the sentiments above that removing the collapse should have been discussed first. I also echo Raintheone (talk · contribs) that is does not look fine on desktop (especially with those with enlarged extended families/marriages), and also AnemoneProjectors (talk · contribs) who stated that just family should be part of the collapsed information. livelikemusic (TALK!) 14:04, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Just to clarify - The above changes were made here last year, if anyone was confused/missed it.DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 14:22, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, this was discussed and real-world and in-universe information was placed in the same areas as one another. – Meena • 17:01, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Just to echo what has already been said. I think it doesn't look okay, particularly on desktop, and should be collapsable. I'd also support a reversal to just family included in the drop down too. Soaper1234 - talk 19:16, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Can someone explain what exactly isn't OK about the appearance? I've looked at a relatively small Macbook screen, a normal sized desktop and a big gaming monitor and it looks just fine to me on all three. The infobox is only 270px wide, this does not crush the prose in any detrimental way on any of these displays. It's no worse than right-justified images. I think maybe what some people don't like is change. Anyway, there seems to be consensus so far to revert the change, but in looking into this further I would caution that the collapsibility really does seem to challenge accessibility, as some devices and platforms don't support it.— TAnthony^Talk 19:51, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

A largely affected part of the collapsibility being removed is the annual lists for characters. It means that shorter sections are suddenly outweighed by the size of the infobox, as it creates huge WP:WHITESPACE. – Meena • 20:07, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

In addition, this has badly affected quotes and pictures in the article, and it can be distracting when reading the article. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 20:14, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Ah thank you, the impact on character lists hadn't occurred to me, I don't have any on my watchlist.— TAnthony^Talk 14:20, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

I'd say we more than have consensus now. – Meena • 19:06, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

I think a collapsible "in-universe" section is a great idea. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 21:36, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Gonnym or TAnthony, would you be able to revert to the collapsible section please? – Meena • 12:09, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Requesting an admin to perform this change

Would an admin be able to restore the collapsible in-universe section to the template as we reached above consensus a while ago? – Meena • 11:51, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi Meena. I do see consensus above to restore the collapsability. Can you, or another involved editor, put together a change-x-to-y style request that I can implement? I do not want to just revert Gonnym's change, as it included other fixes that I don't believe anyone has challenged. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:38, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

This was an undiscussed change that five of us have objected to. Myself, DaniloDaysOfOurLives, Livelikemusic, Soaper1234 and Raintheone have all expressed concerns above over the collapsible feature being removed. TAnthony also agreed with some of the points we made. – Meena • 13:42, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Meena, I totally agree that there is consensus above to remove the collapsibility, and I'm here to enact that change. I am not familiar with this template, and I'm asking what exactly needs to be changed. At a glance, it doesn't seem like reverting this edit is the right move, as it appears to include more than just the collapsibility change. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:48, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

My apologies, I misread "do see" as "don't see" lol. I'm not familiar with the coding as I've never edited it so I implore involved admins TAnthony and Gonnym, who I have tagged previously, to step in and help you out. – Meena • 13:51, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

TAnthony went with a full revert and says they're looking into reimplementing the other changes soon. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:34, 20 August 2023 (UTC)