Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fictional characters/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

File:Friendly stickman.svg

One suggestion ...

I suggest the yellow stickman's color be changed, hard to see. CTJF83 03:39, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I'd suggest having one stickman only. The current logo looks more fitting for something like "WikiProject Social relation" than WikiProject Fictional characters. Jonathan Hardin' (talk) 10:04, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Is there not something better we can use for a project logo? I think one stickman would be better though. –anemoneprojectors– 14:39, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I Like four, just think one of the colours should be changed.RAIN*the*ONE ^BAM 14:59, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

We could look in commons:Category:Fictional characters if we want something else. Alas, most of those images are of individual characters or multiple characters from the same work. I don't know if there's a good image we can use to represent fictional characters in general. Reach Out to the Truth 18:33, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I quite like the idea of using a classic cartoon character such as File:April-maze-copley.jpg –anemoneprojectors– 20:37, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Not a bad idea....CTJF83 20:40, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I just previewed it on the template, it looks good :-) –anemoneprojectors– 21:45, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I definitely think it makes sense to choose an iconic character from WP:Commons, for example a character from Alice's Adventures in Wonderland (the John Tenniel illustrations are widely recognized). The stik people are a little too generic.— TAnthony^Talk 00:27, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree that an iconic character would make a much better logo than stick men. I don't know how such a character could be chosen but of the two suggested I prefer Alice, although I'm not sure how effective that image would be at a smaller size. Sanders11 (talk) 15:19, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Did this fall off from discussion? CTJF83 21:29, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

The problem with that Alice illustration is that it is used for the WikiProject Children's and Young Adult literature banner. Glimmer721 ^talk 00:28, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

When it comes to images in Wikimedia Commons has good images of Popeye, the old cartoon version of Superman, Betty Boop, Felix the Cat, a SpongeBob SquarePants costume, Mickey Mouse symbols, Darth vader costume etc. Here's a gallery of some recommended ones you may remove when a decision is made. :) Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 19:46, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

• Popeye
  Popeye
• SpongeBob SquarePants
  SpongeBob SquarePants
• Darth Vader
  Darth Vader
• 
  Felix the Cat
• Betty Boop
  Betty Boop
• Superman
  Superman
• Homer Simpson
  Homer Simpson
• Porky the Pig
  Porky the Pig
• 
  Mickey Mouse
• Jack Sparrow
  Jack Sparrow
• 
  Spider-Man
• 
  The Mad Hatter
• 
  Sherlock Holmes
• 
  Humpty Dumpty
• 
  Puss in Boots
• 

Most of those are no good. I like Felix, Betty Boop or Alice. –anemoneprojectors– 23:35, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I resized those pictures to up to 80px by 80px since they'll be around that size in the banner. Most of those are either already associated with or potentially associated with other wikiprojects (Alice, Darth Vader, etc.). Felix and his two, huh, friends? look good though. Alternatively, we could use a generic "character" image, like the one posted on the right (this one in particular looks a bit bland but I like the concept). Jonathan Hardin' (talk) 01:14, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I prefer Porky Pig. I mean, how many people can say that they haven't seen that very same image at least once in their life? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 01:18, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

My problem with Porky Pig is that it features the Looney Tunes logo, and would be better suited to a Looney Tunes WikiProject. I still think Felix is the best one! –anemoneprojectors– 01:24, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Currently, there are no projects devoted to Looney Tunes, only an inactive task force in Animation, so it's fair game. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 01:27, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Well I understand that but it just doesn't seem right. It's not generic enough, people might think we're WikiProject Looney Tunes. –anemoneprojectors– 01:31, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Why not just a stick male and female?RAIN*the*ONE ^BAM 01:36, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Do you want us to draw boobs on one of them? :S –anemoneprojectors– 01:39, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Failing Porky, I'd go for Mad Hatter. It has a certain charm to it. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 01:42, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The Porky Pig image looks kinda goofy (no pun intended >_>) next to most other wikiproject banners, which either have a streamlined SVG image or a black and white illustration like that of Alice. The problem with Mad Hatter is that it's from Alice in Wonderland and Alice is already used for WikiProject Children's literature; readers will be thinking "why do Wikipedia keeps using Alice characters as mascots?" or even thinking there's a bias for Alice and Lewis Carroll or something. It doesn't seem like such a big deal, but there are tons of other choices of image possible other than an Alice character so I think we should use them. Jonathan Hardin' (talk) 10:31, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The reason I chose File:Friendly stickman.svg was because it wasn't associated with any series. The trouble using any character from a series always leads itself to a worry that it'll show favouritism, prominence or focus on a particular show. The Felix the Cat image probably won't lead to any confusion, though. Mickey Mouse is also pretty iconic, so that mouse ears-thingy would probably be okay. Harry Blue5 (talk) 22:07, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, unless we go with the Stickmen, it'll show favoritism in one aspect or another. The only issue is the Yellow Stickman which could possibly be changed. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 01:59, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Here, here. I say we keep it.RAIN*the*ONE ^BAM 02:02, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

How did we get way off topic of my original post to recolor the yellow one so it is easier to see? CTJF83 02:08, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

To HarryBlue5 I kind of figured that's why you did it no doubt there. But I can think some characters can qualify. Maybe like an old cartoon or folklore character would do fine. (And this is just my opinion) I personally dig the Puss in Boots one myself. I like that old classic look. Not to say that should be the main image but I think it's a good example. Anyways I actually like yellow stickman (even in yellow) even though it has nothing to do with the topic much. You can always design these images (if there is any image designers here) if you want. I did notice there being an image with just one stickman but I still prefer this one though. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 02:17, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

In reply to Subzerosmokerain, the Mickey Mouse image would be more suited to a Disney Wikiproject, and it's not really a picture of a character anyway, it's more like a logo. I still feel the Felix image is a good one and wouldn't be inappropriate. However, since someone has added File:Persons.svg to the gallery, I think we should use that. It's better than the stickmen and if people are concerned about "favouritism" towards certain characters, than that's ideal. –anemoneprojectors– 10:51, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I like the Persons logo; it's generic and a free image. Glimmer721 ^talk 14:38, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with HarryBlue5 to be honest, i hate to put the cat amongst the piegons and evrything but i think if we choose a certain logo it will make us look biased. Why dont we just keep it as it is? or just change the colour of the yellow one? Or would that be too simple....MayhemMario (talk) 20:17, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

That's why I added Persons.svg as one of the choices. Not to say there is anything wrong with this one except maybe the yellow problem. But still there can be more than one better choice you know. :) Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 20:35, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

GAs

The current articles have been nominated for GA, though a discussion has not yet been started for them. If any one's interested in doing the GA review, feel free to start them:

• Maya Lahan
• Sarah Barnes
• Nina Tucker

The sooner we make some more improve more articles to GAs the better, right? Harry Blue5 (talk) 17:09, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

All three articles have now passed their GA reviews. - JuneGloom Talk 21:12, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Wow! All of them a success. Bravo! Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 23:52, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I know I'm chuffed. There is another too now.Rain the 1 ^BAM 23:54, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Nice job! I would nominate some more of my Pokemon articles, but they either need manga references, or more actual content from manga. Both of which take a bit of researching, which takes time and concentration that I don't have atm. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 00:01, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Requesting additional opinions

There is a discussion at Jason Voorhees regarding continuity and other similar issues. I am not entirely sure what is being proposed, but please come to the page and read over the discussion and voice your opinions. See Talk: Jason Voorhees#Jason Goes to Hell/Freddy vs. Jason/Jason X Debates.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:29, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

GI Joe part 2

So the merging has halted. Any how, looking further into things the references are shocking. They like to include 7 websites that gained consensus citing them as unreliable fansites including "Yojoe", "Myuselessknowledge" and "Halfbattle"... in addition some have Youtube, Blogspot and FORUMS as sources. This article, a GA G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero (Marvel Comics) passed, afterward an editor decided to add more content including youtube, blogspot etc.. They want to take it to FAC too, but I was told that a peer reviewer only has the right to decide what is notable.. hmm

Then we have this list in waiting User:Cerebellum/G.I. Joe at Cerebellum's sandbox. A few are reliable which is positive, it is clear that this editor is really keen and you can see good faith. However after stressing my concerns the editors of the WP see them as reliable still.. I've noticed no other progress in adding any reliable or actually any sourced content to the others. Plus the lists they merged into are masses of In universe info and no R refs. In addition the article Zartan is up for deletion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zartan (2nd nomination), after I noticed the editors want to keep it but it has one fansite ref and the rest citing its own comic book.Rain the 1 ^BAM 02:59, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I dispute that the merging has halted - it's certainly taking place at a slower rate than before, but like most editors, we have more than one thing to occupy our time, both in Wikipedia and without. As for the rest, that's one person's interpretation. I would note however that Raintheone's only contribution so far has been deleting material and posting criticisms on talk pages. Although he had stated a few weeks ago (when this controversy really started to boil up) that he was going to help us out by finding new and better sources, I have yet to see evidence of that. He also states above "but I was told that a peer reviewer only has the right to decide what is notable.", and I would disagree with his version of events - there's nothing wrong with a second opinion, and he knew full well that the article was undergoing peer review at the time. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 21:06, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I have to somewhat agree. You are asking for them to move faster then is expected. A merge like this takes time. To make sure that the right characters get merged, I think it is important to first merge the obviously not notable characters, then try to make the somewhat notable characters show that notability. Right now, I don't believe they have gotten to the second stage yet. WP:NODEADLINE shouldn't be used to keep these articles for a long period of time, but you should give them a couple months to get everything in order. I am pretty sure the great Pokemon merging didn't take place in a week. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 17:43, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the biggest problem is some of us probably want articles to be more in line of a good article and featured article. But not all articles have the luxury of being that. It always took loyalty and hard work of certain editors to have an article strive that. Putting them to AFD or requesting merge is not always the solution for that. Devotion like Harry Blue 5 with the idea of creating Starkiller is what we need. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 18:02, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Merge request

I have created a merge request here. You are invited to join. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 19:25, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Zartan AfD

Head's up FYI: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zartan (2nd nomination) -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 17:18, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Coloured infoboxes

So, what are our opinions on coloured infoboxes? I myself dislike them and am worried that they encourage a more "in-universe" look on a subject. Harry Blue5 (talk) 22:08, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

There's really no rule against them. The main problem is that infoboxes are most essential for information. See WP:IBX. And color (or colour for the British english) are not really important and should probably be avoided. Definitely if it's a strained color. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 22:43, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, it depends on the use I guess. The Pokemon infoboxes have always been pink for some reason. I think most infoboxes try to be gray for readability issues. Most articles should use generic character infobox templates though, so that shouldn't be a big problem. Series-specific infoboxes have been slowly weened out due to the fact that they have specific infoboxes merely for in-universe information purposes which isn't needed for the Infobox. What article are you referring to? _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 23:25, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

It is true that it depends on what infobox you are talking about because they are different stylized infoboxes for different media. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 00:22, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

There are many examples, though the one that prompted me to make this discussion was Cleveland Brown and the rest of the The Cleveland Show characters (which all use the normal {{Infobox character}}), where I saw that NARH removed the colours and had been reverted. Harry Blue5 (talk) 12:05, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Moomin characters need references

I think many to of the Moomin characters such as Moomintroll and Snufkin need independent sources. I can't really find any in English. Does anyone hear understand Swedish of Finnish so we can find good sources. Dwanyewest (talk) 00:12, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll try google translate and see if I can find anything. Harry Blue5 (talk) 12:19, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Characters

Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Characters was created a year ago, and didn't see much activity. What should be done with it? I started the discussion over here, but we can discuss here if you want. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 15:35, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:MFD is how they got rid of Valued Pictures. The project looks dead. CTJF83 15:43, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Well like I said in the other discussion, _{"should this redirect there? Or should it be a taskforce for both projects acting as a bridge of sorts?"} I think being a bridge taskforce could have some use. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 16:05, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Like Wikipedia:WikiProject Fictional characters/Video Game task force like WP:GLEE is? CTJF83 16:09, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes. But the question is, do we leave it as a VG taskforce, move it to be our taskforce, or just kill it? _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 16:13, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd say kill, if it isn't doing much as a sub of WP:VG, I don't see what switching to this project would do. CTJF83 16:17, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't quite say kill just yet. Perhaps it was just being unnoticed. I never noticed it. I personally like the idea of changing it to a task force in this project. A few times I was wondering to divide the characters of different media (comics,video games, toys, anime and manga, literature) into a task force of there own while it can be stated as part of the certain media WikiProject by redirection or soft redirection. Also the main project page (if not already) should focus on there tasks force a little bit and I haven't seen a link one of it on the WikiProject so far. Explains a little bit why it's dead but I can also see the main information about talking about per say characters mostly being in the main pages. That does make task forces a little less useful sometimes. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 18:51, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm on the fence here. On one hand, let's be honest here, the majority of characters who have articles on Wikipedia are from video games (God bless IGN and GameDaily) so there's probably enough to create a task force about them, but if we create a task force focused entirely on VG characters, will it be stepping on WP:VG's toes too much (even if it does become a bridge project). And if we create one for video games, should we create some for other mediums? Are there enough characters for other mediums? Or should we only make a VG task force?

But, yeah, I don't see to much reason why to not make it a task force. If we do keep it, should we move it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Fictional characters/Video games or leave it where it is? It's still going to be a bridge WikiProject between us and them either way though, naturally. Harry Blue5 (talk) 17:09, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

It wouldn't hurt I suppose, but I'm also fairly certain that it is not necessary at all. The Video Game project does a very good job of policing their character articles on their own; really, all but five or so have the development and reception sections necessary to allow an article. They are the example of how every project should handle character articles under their scope. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 17:37, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Truly, WP:VG is awesome. If it isn't neccesary, do you think we should kill it then? Harry Blue5 (talk) 19:28, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Did anybody contact the original creator? You don't kill something unless you notify them first. Perhaps we could have a speedy deletion if he/she agrees with you making it even easier. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 19:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh. Right. I forgot about the creator. I hope he doesn't take offence to us suggesting we delete/redirect/merge/etc. his creation. It was a good idea, but it just never really kicked off and the efforts of WP:VG and the creation of this task force sorta wrecked its chances. I'll just get him now. Harry Blue5 (talk) 19:43, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Somebody decided to override us and create an MfD for it. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 01:06, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

It got deleted. Harry Blue5 (talk) 21:30, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Mad Men

There's a discussion at Talk:List of Mad Men characters about the appropriateness of removing recurring characters from the list. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 18:02, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

DEFAULTSORT:

I've noticed that some characters have {{DEFAULTSORT:<surname>, <first name>}} on them. While this is done on many real people, I'm really not sure whether it should be extended to fictional characters. Fictional characters are not, of course, real people, and generally tend to be known by their first name. Normal naming rules don't follow fictional characters, e.g. titles like Mr. are used in Mr. Garrison rather than Garrison or Herbert Garrison, and you wouldn't say "Simpson is a fictional character in...", you'd say "Homer is a fictional character in...".

There are exceptions (such as Fry instead of Phillip, but generally it tends to be Luke instead of Skywalker, Sophitia instead of Alexandra, Niko instead of Bellic, Ash instead of Ketchum, etc. Saying stuff like "Skywalker was told by Kenobi that his father had died..." is a more in-universe approach, and even some IU wikis don't do it.

I think characters like Phillip J. Fry should use stuff like {{DEFAULTSORT:Fry, Phillip J.}} because that's how they're referred to, but normal sorting should be the general approach.

Any thoughts? Harry Blue5 (talk) 23:07, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

For the most part DEFAULT sort is used so that articles group logically in large categories. It has little to do with how the article is written. And since compiling list of names in English is normally done by surname, I really don't see a problem with sorting fictional characters in that manner.

The only issues I see cropping up are:

• Cases where the names follow Asian formatting.
• Cases where there isn't a context for which part is the surname.
• Cases where the name is a title of some sort.

- J Greb (talk) 23:56, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

This template yet again

PreviouslyTemplate:Final Fantasy character was nominated to be deleted, but due to low amount of editors contributing their thoughts, it was kept. I was wonder if this was the right place to add this, as it's a template meant for a specifically for final fantasy characters. The template brings in both trivial and in-universe information under the main fictional character infobox. Thins such as:

• class/Job
• weapon
• skill
• special abbility
• special Attack
• Race

and

• home

Not only are they in-universe but incredibly in-universe and only useful to a certain group of readers, such as fans or RPG fanatics. Articles such as Squall Leonhart, Cloud Strife and Lightning (Final Fantasy) barely put much focus on these in-universe stats in the main article. I would like to nominate this for deletion but it would be best to get a consensus first that someone would put in their opinion. I don't want to nominate something and get no response.Bread Ninja (talk) 05:51, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Just took a look at this and the other 7 sub-templates in Category:General VG character subboxes and, roughly, how they are used. To be honest I don't see a problem. {{Mercenaries character}} could possibly be deleted as unused and {{Sonic character}} a pair of "silly" fields, but that's really it. These are designed as modules for {{Infobox VG character}} and on balance keep the weight off of the IU material.

As for "...only useful to a certain group of readers...", I'd agree it would be a problem if the bulk of or entire article was written to/for video RPGers/fans. That isn't the case here.

- J Greb (talk) 14:39, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

For Template:Final Fantasy character, I think that "Class/Job", "Race" and maybe "Home" are a-okay. Weapon, Skill and the like might be a bit too trivial, but the template definitely has some usage for certain characters (for example, IIRC the fact Vivi's race is a Black Mage is fairly important). Harry Blue5 (talk) 15:06, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Weapon is an iffy thing. Based on the articles and what I know of the series, some of the characters are identified by the weapon used/carried. So that can be an important thing.

- J Greb (talk) 16:14, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

But to a certain specific group. Not overall, and isn't much significance overall article too. There shouldn't be a template for fictional characters specifically for final fantasy (potentially all RPG).Bread Ninja (talk) 16:19, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

The class/job thing is moreorless specific to Final Fantasy. It's really more of a subtemplate then it's own template, really. Harry Blue5 (talk) 17:58, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

And your point in keeping it is?Bread Ninja (talk) 17:59, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Long and short? The information is relatively important. That it is more important to a small group is irrelevant. If this were a case of it being a full infobox built in an IU tone, yes it would definitely be a candidate for TfD. Again, that isn't the case. - J Greb (talk) 18:40, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

How?Bread Ninja (talk) 18:47, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I think Special attack and Special ability could be removed, but the others could be relevant. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 19:36, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with a little bit of in-universe mentioning on a template like that. We just need more outside perspective of the fictional characters in the template like who voices a character etc. There can be many more suggestions. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 21:31, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

This is a subtemplate to {{Infobox VG character}}, which has out-of-universe details like that. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 22:18, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I see that now. Still if there was any articles about those characters I would have probably let it slide but I have only saw list articles about the characters in that video games. Where is it being used if at all? Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 23:09, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

If you look here you will see there are many non-lists using it like Sephiroth (Final Fantasy), Barret Wallace, and Sora (Kingdom Hearts). _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 23:17, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Of course now I do remember seeing some of those articles. Silly me. Well I don't think the fictional information bothers me too much but I will let other guys determine that if they should stay or not. ;) Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 23:58, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

these articles barely cover any in-universe information to make it significant enough to make room in the infobox. subtemplate or not, i don't see how that helps the article, the template basically serves the same purpose but optional... Now if articles such as these really did alot more focus in the in-universe, such as home, race or even class. Than maybe. But its' not and i personally think it will never do, due to it might demoting the articles that are GA-class or wanting to be GA-class.Bread Ninja (talk) 01:46, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. Due to Final Fantasy being such a "big budget" series, there's tons and tons of out-of-universe reception and development info to balance this out. The fact that they're not like that currently is okay because there is WP:NODEADLINE. While not all the parameters need to stay, I think they provide some valuable in-universe info that is available quickly at a glance. Axem Titanium (talk) 03:56, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

when you say, thers enough enough out-of universe info to balance it out, you're admitting that it is in-universe. I personally don't think there should be a "balance" in templates. NOne of the parameters need to stay....A quick look on the infobox is a quick look in proseBread Ninja (talk) 04:04, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

And reason why articles aren't focusing on in-universe information is because they want to make better articles like up to GA or featured. This template calls out for specific information not relatively important to all groups of readers. And lets not use WP:NODEADLINE for in=universe. IN-universe is usually the first thing that comes up when an article is starting.Bread Ninja (talk) 04:17, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I think one standard is that if it isn't mentioned in the prose, it shouldn't be mentioned in the infobox. Using Sephiroth as an example, is it stated in the article that he is a "SOLDIER 1st Class", and uses a Masamune? Yes, Masamune is described in the article, and being in SOLDIER is described, but being "1st Class" isn't. Using Rikku as an example, Al Bhed should probably be linked, and then it would be of some use to learn more about her race, but her home being "Bikanel Island" is of no use to people who don't know anything about the series. Is there an article which lists information about this place? If not, its useless to show this here. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 14:40, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

The problem with template such as this is that if there's an option available, and it applies to a character (no matter how slight), there's a compulsive urge to use it. To some characters, their home is a big part of their character, while for others it is incredibly trivial. Harry Blue5 (talk) 14:47, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Apparently you have never seen comic book character infoboxes. They are known to be in universe (powers and abilities, team affiliations, partners, aliases) and with a little bit of outside perspective (creators, first issue introduction) as well. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 14:51, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the general consensus that has always been, and is why this request for deletion was denied last time is that it can be used correctly, and just because it isn't doesn't mean that you can delete it. Simple remove the trivial information from the articles where you see fit. Just remember that in some cases, it can be used correctly, as Harry stated. Sometimes the information is useful, and sometimes it isn't. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 14:55, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Problem is, that it's used in an infobox that includes specific in-universe that only a specific group shares. If we had a universal fictional character sub-template, that includes in-universe that all fictional characters share, then that would be more acceptable. the problem is that this is a sub-template for final fantasy characters only (and any RPG character made from square enix). Things such as "Class/job" and "Race". Really, SOLDIER 1st class is much more of a title, than a class as he isn't playable. Also, name of his sword is also trivial as it does not describe the type of sword or such.Bread Ninja (talk) 00:32, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

"If we had a universal fictional character sub-template, that includes in-universe that all fictional characters share..." We wouldn't need a sub template it would be in the basic template.

I'm sorry, the idea of these sub templates is to allow flexibility. Not cover all possibilities. Yes, it is for a limited set of characters. but I do believe that is the point - to create consistency within the group of what shows in the 'box and what fields should be addressed.

Yes, some of the fields in this one are worthless and some need clean up as used. As it stands I agree with Blake, that calls for fixing the problems nor turfing the whole thing. - J Greb (talk) 01:05, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

why is flexibility a good thing?Maybe we should make a basic universal parameters into fictional characters infobox instead of a number subtemplates for each group, which i might add the other ones listed could also be easily deleted.Bread Ninja (talk) 01:11, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

What specific group are you referring to when you say it only appeals to a specific group? It's certainly not just fans or "RPG fanatics" because it would certainly be appealing to a first-time player (i.e., not a fan, but a regular gamer/consumer of fiction). If we only write articles that the "average Wikipedia reader" would like or be interested in, then we should delete almost all articles on books, games, fictional characters, etc. because the average reader is not a fan of any one fictional work and thus would not be interested. Personally, I think Wikipedia articles should be written by fans (or interested parties, in the case of historical/scientific concepts) with the goal of persuading a non-fan to be interested in it. The first part should be obvious since non-fans have no obligation to edit an article about something they don't like. The second part follows from the fact that an article, by definition, is meant to be read and it is our job (as interested parties) to make that article worth reading. I think this in-universe template aids in this goal. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:38, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

My views are similar, but the method is different. Wikipedia should still be encyclopedic. This template does so little. It barely covers two parameters in each article and rather inconsistent. For example: Cloud Strife's parameter says "Broadsword" for his weapon, yet Sephiroth's puts the actual name of his weapon instead of type.

If the goal is to just get non-fans to be interested. than the proposal of a universal fictional profile should occur. IF we make specific parameters for specific groups of fictional characters, than you see the inconsistency there is within wikipedia. I mean why bother making a fictional characters wikiproject, i they're not going to fix that problem?

And article is meant to be read, and that's what it does. Axem Titanium. I'm not going to settle for this half-baked argument solely based off generic definitions and personal views. in wikipedia being a fan should come 2nd.Bread Ninja (talk) 15:48, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

It has already been decided many times even before this discussion that all the fields can be used correctly on certain articles. Just because it isn't used correctly on some articles doesn't mean you can nuke the whole thing. Making a in-universe template for all fictional characters will not work. Different series focus on different things, so different templates are needed. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 16:12, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

that's not why i want to "nuke" it. Because it provides so little, it might as well not for the very little it does. Different series may focus on different things, but that's where NPOV comes in. I personally believe there's nothing in this template that really makes it necessary for articles to have. Race and class and weapon can easily be added in prose and the rest is VERY trivial. adding it in infobox gives it a sign of importance which is highly subjective. Again, a universal fictional profile would be a lot more beneficial. Such as age, role:(protagonist, Antagonist). Just because some characters focus on other things doesn't mean we have to highlight it.Bread Ninja (talk) 16:23, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Age often can not be sourced correctly, and is trivial. Roles sometimes switch around(Darth Vader/Anakin), and can often be shown in the first sentence of the lead of the article. I agree that some template fields are trivial like Mega Man's model number, but most fields are tolerable as they do provide some insight into certain characters. While it may not be important what race, class, or weapon some people use, they are very important for understanding others. So think about each field and think "would the reader benefit from knowing this, and would they be able to understand it if they knew nothing about the series?"(note: if the term is linked to a Gameplay page which explains it, that is fine.) _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 19:15, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

i say no to all. At a readers point of view, i might find it some-what interesting but i wouldn't say its vital enough for infobox. And if age is trivial than everything should be trivial. And linking up to gameplay would be nice if the article had a section about gameplay, but what kind of fictional character has a section of the gameplay of the game that character featured?Bread Ninja (talk) 01:04, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

What? I meant linking to a gameplay page about the series. Not a gameplay section in the character article in question. For instance, Rikku's race, Al Bhed. Anyways, I don't think now is the time to talk about completely removing all in-universe templates for fictional characters, and possibly replacing them with something else. That calls for a huge discussion. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 01:26, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

i know what you meant, but i said that would only work with what i just said. And maybe we should make a huge discussion over it. I mean, obviously there is a problem with making templates per specific topics instead of universal ones. it has final fantasy as a name. So it shows some sign of bias.Bread Ninja (talk) 04:34, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I think this discussion should wait until summer. The template has been active for 5 years. I am sure 2 more months won't hurt. Then we can make a proper discussion for looking at each field and deciding whether they can be used for non-trival purposes.WP:NODEADLINE. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 13:26, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

AS long as some are on-board with the idea of a universal fictional profile. But i'll bring it back at the given time.Bread Ninja (talk) 13:28, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

GA nomination for Starkiller

I've nominated Starkiller for GA-status. Hopefully, it'll be approved and/or any problems will be easily fixed. If anyone's interested, feel free to review it. Harry Blue5 (talk) 20:58, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Look like the nomination was successful. Good job! I remember when you first created it, it sure did improve quick. :) Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 19:19, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Fictional fictional character

Fictional fictional character has been nominated for deletion. 64.229.100.45 (talk) 04:28, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Non-fictional character

Non-fictional character has been prodded for deletion. 64.229.100.45 (talk) 04:33, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

no real world content

A certain discussion is going on here to determine on what do on the remaining articles on the certain project page. You are invited to join if you like :) Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 18:31, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Requested move of Mileena (Mortal Kombat) -> Mileena

Your input on the matter is requested here.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:54, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Merging How I Met Your Mother characters

I think we should merge How I Met Your Mother characters to the list. They don't seem to indicate notability. Still, there are a lot of reviews for episodes on IGN, but I'm not sure anything talks about the characters individually. Is there any opposition? Harry Blue5 (talk) 20:52, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

The more appropriate place for the discussion about that particular subject is in the list article not really here. And then you can link it on this WikiProject if you like. But I do agree with the question of notability of those characters. :) Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 00:04, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually it's appropriate for discussion to occur here, as long as there's a link here to it. Given some of the reactions on that list' talk page, having it in a more open forum here may be the best idea.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:19, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Lists usually get responded by fans. Fans aren't usually impartial, and tend to use the "Notable series = Notable character" logic. Doing this here has a higher chance of getting more Wikipedia-knowledged people who theoretically have no bias for or against the characters having articles. Besides, whats the point of having a WikiProject if you don't use it, eh? Harry Blue5 (talk) 01:35, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but there still has to be some sort of indicator on the article's talk page that there is a discussion about it, so editors interested can join in. We aren't a secret society planning to delete all character articles, and only discussing it in our secret headquarters. xD _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 01:50, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

We aren't?!?! :O I've left a message on the talk page already. Fortunately, someone seemed to have added merge templates to every single characters about a year ago, which made it a lot more easy. Harry Blue5 (talk) 08:34, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

To Kung Fu Man and Harry Blue5, that is just the more logical place. You are right the main discussion can be made here if you link it. That can work to. And fans should be welcome to join in to no matter what their pick is. You never know when they can find sources if they really want the article to stay hard enough. ;) Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 14:24, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I would support the merge of all of them except Barney Stinson, which I believe already has enough reception to justify its existence. That article simply needs to be severely trimmed of all the overly-specific in-universe information and expanded. The others, however, should be merged and redirected. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 16:50, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. The article does seem to be filled with cruft but he does seem to qualify as notable with having a few sources on the article. It just needs a trim and (as the tag said) cleanup. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 18:27, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

So, we settled on redirecting every character except for Barney Stinson? Harry Blue5 (talk) 22:21, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Went ahead and redirected all the characters to the list (apart from Barney). I expect some backlash against this very very soon. Harry Blue5 (talk) 20:38, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't mind that you guys decided to re-direct the pages, but why didn't any info from those pages get merged into the list? For example, the Ted Mosby section of the article is only 4 sentences long. I think the main character of the series deserves more than that. --Scorp Stanton (talk) 04:05, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I added all that I knew was important. I don't watch How I Met Your Mother though, so Ted Mosby lost a lot of details. If you can improve it in anyway, feel free to go ahead and do it. Harry Blue5 (talk) 00:47, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Merge of Lenny Leonard and Carl Carlson

I've started a discussion on merging Lenny Leonard and Carl Carlson from The Simpsons to a list or something similar. Discussion's on the Simpsons project talk page. Keep it all centralised there, please. Harry Blue5 (talk) 22:51, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

More GA nominations

• Mark Brennan (Neighbours)
• Sol Levi
• Stevie Dickinson
• Natasha Williams (Neighbours)
• Charlie Buckton
• Sam Mitchell (EastEnders)

If anyone's intersted, these have been nominated for GA status and need some reviewers. The sooner we get more precious GAs, the better. Harry Blue5 (talk) 22:20, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I do wish someone would review these now.. Fictional characters are always last to be reviewed at GA..Rain the 1 ^BAM 21:03, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I know, and they've been top of the list for AGES. –anemoneprojectors– 00:01, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Necrid up for FAC once more

Could use some eyes towards this, but making another pass at getting Necrid up to FAC. I think I've managed to take care of all the problems from the earlier attempts, and the text should flow a lot smoother as it were.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 05:34, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Just bumping this a little, Necrid's been up for FAC for a bit but with no supports or opposes it's going to just default to "not promoted". Could really use some more input or thoughts on the article if anyone can.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:51, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll check it out today. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 17:08, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

List of Discworld characters by region AfD

I've nominated List of Discworld characters by region for deletion. Discussion's here. Harry Blue5 (talk • contribs) 21:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Relationship of Clark Kent and Lois Lane AFD

Discussion here. Should this project get a WP:DELSORT listing? Axem Titanium (talk) 06:27, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Universal in-universe subtemplate

Going from the previous discussion about Final Fantasy's in-universe subtemplate, what are the thoughts on a general in-universe subtemplate for {{Infobox VG character}}? If we do make this subtemplate, it will be a lot easier to decide which subtemplate's are neccessary and which ones are simply duplicative of others. For reference in case we do make it, the following are used on {{Infobox character}}:

• Nickname (Opposed by Bread Ninja in favour of Alias)
• Alias
• Species
• Gender
• Occupation
• Title
• Family
• Spouse
• Significant other
• Children
• Relatives (Opposed by Bread Ninja)
• Religion (Opposed by Bread Ninja)
• Nationality (Suggested to be renamed/repurpose by Harry Blue5)

We don't have to use all of those, but it's a good starting point. Harry Blue5 (talk) 20:41, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I feel like having a general use "in-universe" template would encourage the addition of this type of information when it's not relevant or supported by citations. By having series-specific templates, you can narrow the scope to just that series and identify the series-relevant parameters. A general template for all fictional characters would conceivably be used by every fictional character article and random anons would want to fill every parameter, which would be bad. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:25, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I Don't think so. Then we would be bias. the ones i dont agree with are Religion, relatives, and Alias and Nickname are practically the same thing. best to use alias.Bread Ninja (talk) 18:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I think we should rename/repurpose the Nationality section. It's just that a lot of VG characters tend to be from alternate worlds and nationality doesn't really fit, so I think something like "Home" would be better. Of course, it should only be added to characters when it matters. Harry Blue5 (talk • contribs) 23:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

You also added quite a few that are redundant such as Children, Spouse and Family which pretty much coincide with Relatives. I also Oppose to those. Significant other? I don't understand that one.Bread Ninja (talk) 23:26, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

All I did was copy what was there on {{Infobox character}}. I have added nothing since I posted this first thing. Harry Blue5 (talk • contribs) 01:24, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

• I Oppose the whole thing, because as stated, it would make people want to fill it out where it isn't necessary. Most of the fields are not appropriate for Wikipedia. Series-centric templates can focus on what is important and appropriate. I do agree with an overhaul on these templates though, to cut down on fields that aren't being used for good anywhere, like Mega Man (character)'s "Model number". Using the precedent that if it isn't mentioned in the article, it likely isn't notable enough. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 00:03, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
• I agree with Blake and Axem Titanium.
  Having "specialty" sub-templates for named game types or franchises allows the type and number of fields to be limited. Some fields are useful only on some articles, and some of the fields are impossible to fill for some games. Having a "one size fits all" solution creates more problems than it solves.
  And yes, one of those will be a "complete all fields" mentality - be it by IPs or registered editors. For good or for ill it is an aspect of editors attracted to these types of articles.
  - J Greb (talk) 00:28, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

but like i said, that would make the templates bias per series. it's like making a template just for a series just because that series calls it important but not overall.Bread Ninja (talk) 04:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

What guideline states that templates can't be biased? _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 13:07, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

None that I'm aware of Blake.

Bread Ninja, IF this were a call for a full blown "Infobox Final Fantasy character" (or the like) that totally ignored the VG character 'box, I might agree with at least part of your position. It isn't. It is dealing with not falling into one of the two "one size fits all" problems - bare bones minimal fields that are common to all the game characters or all fields an hope the pages won't need to be routinely patrolled to avoid "compulsive completeness". - J Greb (talk) 22:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Idk...this makes me doubt this wikiproject even more. Universal subtemplate doesn't sound bad at all........if it doesn't fit in, then oh well....Bread Ninja (talk) 23:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

And templates shouldn't be bias. it's practically a principle. You mae a tempalte bias, you make the all the articles that have that template bias.Bread Ninja (talk) 23:56, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

We could always cut it down to just "Gender" and "Species" which probably wouldn't cause any problems, but that... uh... doesn't give us much of a subtemplate. Maybe if we made the general idea and incorporated that into the current template (with just those two parimeters) and used any other subtemplates when more is called for? Harry Blue5 (talk • contribs) 23:58, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

not really, the subtemplate is adding information that is subjectively important. Not that it actually is important overall.Bread Ninja (talk) 03:16, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't know how you feel, but it's generally accepted that gender and species are fairly important to a fictional character. For gender: Ignoring the design choices in clothes, hair and general body structure, from a reception viewpoint females often get commentary on how they look, and ones that aren't designed to be attractive are generally noted for being all political corect and all that jazz. For species: Again, huge differences in design depending on species and in a lot of stories if you're a race other than human it's likely to be a huge part of your character plotwise. Harry Blue5 (talk • contribs) 21:01, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

You're being bias. I know i'm slinging that word alot, but you're putting more thought and implications than you should. Gender? not so much.....it could be added for the sake of being general info, but species? i highly doubt thats important. Its best we make in-universe subtempaltes per category, not series.Bread Ninja (talk) 09:55, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

{{Infobox VG character}} cleanup

I think the following fields should be removed from the template:

• {{{autonym}}} because it isn't even in the template documentation
• {{{identity}}} because it isn't even in the template documentation and it doesn't mean anything obvious
• {{{first}}} because it's redundant with {{{firstappearance}}}
• {{{firstgame}}} because it's redundant with {{{firstappearance}}}
• {{{artist}}} because it's redundant with {{{designer}}}
• {{{voiced by}}} because it's redundant with {{{voiceactor}}}
• {{{motion capture}}} because it's redundant with {{{motionactor}}}
• {{{portrayed by}}} because it's redundant with {{{liveactor}}}

Thoughts? Jonathan Hardin' (talk) 09:35, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Want a scan run to see how many of those are used in live transclusions? - J Greb (talk) 14:06, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I think it would be best to notify WP:VG, as they are the ones who made it. They more know how these fields are to be used. Also, the first appearance of a character might not always be in a video game. For instance, some Pokemon appear in films before the video game of their generation comes out. These include Latias and Latios, Lucario, and Zoroark. Now that I know this field exists, I might add it to their articles. Also, the artist might not be the original designer. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 15:02, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

That still doesn't mean there shuold be a "first game". it doesn't make sense for that when you think about it. Is it first video game appearance or just first game based off that character? either way, it's not necessary for those.Bread Ninja (talk) 15:06, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, I think it's important because as they are using the Video game character infobox, it should show their first video game appearance, but if they appeared in another media before that, it is important to show also. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 15:30, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Looking at the 'box should provide the information of forat appearance and first game appearance if different. It underscores that the character was adapted into the came and why the VG character 'box is used instead Infobox character or comics character. - J Greb (talk) 16:12, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Portrayed by and Live actor are semantic differences that can be important. MoCap/Actor, Voice/Actor, Artist/Designer and the first two can probably be rectified. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:15, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

True - "Portrayal" would imply a film, audio play, or TV show and live action or animated. So, for an example, any of the primary Mortal Kombat characters would have the actors - voice and motion - that were used for the games as well as actors and voice actors for the portrayals from the films and shows.

But before we move forward on the first 2 parameters pointed to and numbers 5-7, I'd like 1) and idea of whch way we're going on each and 2) and idea of how much clean up is going to be needed. - J Greb (talk) 21:13, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

The first 2 can be removed. The 3rd and 5th one can be piped. The last 2 and firstgame I'm not sure of. The last 2 I don't know if there is enough difference to warrant it not being transcluded. The latter I'm not sure whether its all that important; we don't include first appearances in an anime for stuff like Pokemon characters even though many of the characters are far more well known in the anime.

As for artist/designer, they are not always the same. Mostly these differentiate between the concept artist and the in-game artist. It also matters when a game is an adaptation. That one should really be split imo.陣内_Jinnai 23:01, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Just because we don't do it doesn't mean we shouldn't. Like I said above, only a small handful of Pokemon appeared in a movie or other media before the video games. For characters that are using the video game infobox, they should be prominent in video games, but if they appeared in some other media first, that is important to show for the development, I would think. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 01:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I think autonym and identity can safely be removed. As for the others, we should choose one to support and deprecate the others but I suspect they were created for convenience, if editors couldn't remember exactly if the parameter was "voiced by" or "voiceactor". Axem Titanium (talk) 03:47, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Saying that something is a video game character for a media franchise like Pokemon rather than an anime character is imo boardering too much weight on the video game aspect. If there is a feel to list the first video game appearance for something like that, certainly the first anime/manga appearance should be done as that kind of franchise is associated more than just video games.陣内_Jinnai 17:20, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Collab of the week

Okay, it's time we got to this. I propose we start a collab on Sub-Zero (Mortal Kombat), a highly viewed article that has plenty of reception. However it very recently got two tags, one for in-universe styling and another for a general clean-up. With a clean-up and the some referencing of the bits, I think this article could very well be a GA. Any objections? Harry Blue5 (talk • contribs) 16:13, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Sure. I vote simply removing the "Biography" section, as it is unrefrenced inuniverse information, that if important should be shown in other parts of the article. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 16:19, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I expanded the lead, and replaced the biography section with the gameplay section, which was in an odd location. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 16:38, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

"but the name was changed after a member of the design team saw the Arnold Schwarzenegger film The Running Man, in which the first assassin fought by Schwarzenegger's character used the name, albeit not hyphenated" Can we get a source for that? Harry Blue5 (talk • contribs) 16:47, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah that whole design section is a mess...lemme dig through some of the sources I used for Reptile, I should be able to come up with some solid design information.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:50, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Now that the "Biography" section's gone, do you think it'd be safe to remove the in-universe tag? Also, we should probably extend this into next week, since we started this one half-way through the week and haven't really "finished" yet. Harry Blue5 (talk • contribs) 15:40, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, we got the ball rolling on it. Whether we start a new focus or not, I think that the article would get the same level of editing. Starting a new article sounds good. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 15:51, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

For the next collab of the week, would anyone be interested in doing Buzz Lightyear? It could really use a lot of trimming. Harry Blue5 (talk • contribs) 16:05, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

lol, I just watched Toy Story 3 last night. Anyways, that article not only needs alot of trimming, but also expansion in development and reception. Also, somebody either forged the article to be B-class, or reverted back to a fail version. I am re-assessing it as start, because it is missing so much, and has so much other stuff as filler. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 17:20, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

"Aldrin acknowledged the tribute when he pulled a Buzz Lightyear doll out during a speech at NASA, to rapturous cheers; a clip of this can be found on the Toy Story 10th Anniversary DVD. Aldrin did not, however, receive any endorsement fees for the use of his first name."

If we can get a source for that, we can probably move the whole "Name" section to the "Concept and creation" and lose nothing important. Harry Blue5 (talk • contribs) 19:16, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Sourced from Buzz Aldrin's article. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 19:24, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Do you think it'd be worth just nuking the Characteristics section altogether? It's almost entirely unsourced and has some more trivial elements. I've always found it better when coming to personality to get creator's comments on it rather than just saying what you think the character's personality is. (Of course, if we can get a source for it being similar to modern-day ones that might be nice dev. info). Harry Blue5 (talk • contribs) 19:42, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I think trimming the suit information was enough. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 20:10, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

"He has blue eyes and brown eyebrows, hinting that he might have brown hair." I think this bit should be removed. His eye and eyebrow colour are hardly important aspects of his character and the brown hair is just original research. Harry Blue5 (talk • contribs) 20:21, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Hey Blake, you must have gotten rid of a citation that is used in the article more than once with a name while trimming it. You should probably fix that.;) Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 20:23, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I think the Appearances section might need a rewrite so that it focuses more on Buzz's role than just the general plot of the films. Harry Blue5 (talk • contribs) 20:51, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Anyone think the "Portrayed by" section of the infobox is a little too long? Also, the "family" section seems just a list of th toys in the crew--they're not really related, are they? Glimmer721 ^talk 00:10, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about removing the ref. I didn't know it was used elsewhere, and I was in a rush. As for your question about "family", they state in the movie that they are a family, but they aren't actually related, no. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 00:54, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Should we can use {{Collapsible list}} on the Portrayals bit? Harry Blue5 (talk • contribs) 09:01, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't see why all the different languages are necessary. Remove them, and it may be a decent size. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 13:45, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Infobox question

I was wondering, filling in an infobox on a fictional comic book character, and they have been around for a long time published by multiple companies and titles, do you fill in information based on their original status when created, their status as of how they were most well known, how they are NOW, or do we put in informaiton all through their career? For instance, on affiliation with a team, they were originally solo, then printed by another company with a team, then printed by another company solo. Do I list the team anyways, and just make clear in the body text that is was a temporary affiliation? Mathewignash (talk) 21:58, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

List all well known statuses I guess. If it was just a temporary alliance, I wouldn't think that is notable to put in the infobox. You could clarify which works they were under which team in parentheses if necessary. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 23:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

personally i dont think most of the in-universe in the comics is note-worthy and seems to be rather crufty than informative. Just add in what you can back up through third-party sources.Bread Ninja (talk) 15:33, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Third party sources are not necessary for anything but notability, as far as I know. Primary sources, being the work itself, can show what teams they were on. If it was speculation that because they worked with somebody for a short while, that they are affiliated with them, then that would require a better source. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 15:49, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

but note-worthy of inclusion as key info (infobox)? This brings up to my discussion above, but really, if we're going to add this as key info we should make it so these articles prove it is so. Just because they have these parameters, does it mean we have to fill them all out? (According to previous discussion about universal in-universe subtemplate that would be bad appparently). I say third party, because it would help. if it's just a fact but the source is merely being the plot itself, how should we consider that key info to that character? Marvel & DC comic characters are on a whole different stage of parameters, sure some usefull, but most of it is just things related to DC &Marvel characters.Bread Ninja (talk) 16:22, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

"Noteable" tends to be the limiter. Most of the work Comics project editors have done is to add cases where the character is or has been a recurring member of a team and identified as such. The one-off "Everyone's an Avenger/Leaguer" stories, or the like, are left out, And the character pages do tend to be "all inclusive" - current and former teams getting listed so as not to skew the info to the "recent". I am curious though which article(s) the OP was looking at that kicked this off. - J Greb (talk) 21:48, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I dont think we should even add parameters like that just because we fill them in. Plus, the name of that parameter is pretty bad too.Bread Ninja (talk) 09:03, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Don't you write fiction in the present tense? Therefore if a fictional character is a member of team A, then in another story they are in team B, they are both members of team A and B equally for the infobox. We don't need to specify that they were in A and are NOW in B. If you are not careful someone could put the logic of Now and Then in Categories. Then we'd need a Category for "Current Avengers" and another for "Former Avengers". That would be too much. Mathewignash (talk) 18:15, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, materials presented in an in-story POV is in the "ever present now". That's part of the reason "former associations" was removed long ago.

As for the character categories... they would be deleted out of hand under current consensus steming from "fuzzy" inclusion criteris, fostering OR, category clutter on articles, scope of content (see my comment about "Everyone is and Avenger/Leaguer"), etc.

- J Greb (talk) 22:31, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Infobox redundancy

I had another question, more on article style, but related to the infobox. Once information has been placed in an infobox on a fictional character (like first appearance, actor who played them, etc), do you repeat that information in the body of the article, or is that redundant? For instance, if I say Lieutenant Starbuck was played by Dirk Benedict in the infobox, do I ALSO mention Benedict played him in the header? Do I mention it in the body of the page too? Just the box and header? Mathewignash (talk) 20:51, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

The infobox is supportive material. Anything in the infobox should be replicated somewhere in the article. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 22:21, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Similarly, the lead is a summary of the article, and should not have any information not in the main prose. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 22:30, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Yup, both the lead and the 'box are summaries of the article, though each may have slightly different content. - J Greb (talk) 22:33, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

my doubts and counter proposal

As you all know i have my doubts about the benefits of this wikiproject. For one, i don't think we need separate fictional character templates for different media, such as video games or anime/manga etc. But possibly take it through a different approach. depending on characters are played by actual people, or just voices, or both voice and body movements are used. Parameters could be set more simpler. I of course still have my doubts on the in-universe sub-templates per series as we are the ones choosing to make articles that much more in-universe, but maybe per genre or something similar might not make things so specific. Well the idea, is to make general templates, that all fictional character articles wont be bias and be completely neutral. its not a definite proposal because i want people to work with the idea first instead of opposing whatever solid proposal i do put in.Bread Ninja (talk) 10:54, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Just because we oppose your one idea doesn't mean the whole project is doomed. The project isn't about templates and stuff. It's about cleaning up the articles and making them of better quality. What infobox template they use is not that important to the quality of the article. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 13:28, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

You're definitely missing the point to fixing the template issue. Doomed? not exactly, but has no individual goals than from other wikiprojects already aim for. these aren't just "any" templates either. these are infobox templates, what wikipedia considers key information.Bread Ninja (talk) 15:13, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to be honest with you here, I'm not actually sure what you're proposing. Harry Blue5 (talk • contribs) 16:12, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

New infoboxes and our approach to fictional character articles.Bread Ninja (talk) 16:35, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

What kind of new infoboxes would you like? The current three main (for want a better term) ones seem to be {{Infobox character}}, {{Infobox VG character}} and {{Infobox animanga character}}. Also, what would you like to see changed from our current approach to character articles? Harry Blue5 (talk • contribs) 16:57, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

A template of type of fictional character, potentially to something like one universal one. The anime/manga and VG only make it so that if one character leans toward a certain media, the key information would be that media and override what truly is key information, by the original character designer and such. Still we can't over look the current as well which is why i thought we could figure something out.Bread Ninja (talk) 17:28, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

And for completeness there is also {{Infobox comics character}}, but that also bucks the premise "The can only be one". Hell even the generic on bucks it since it is being used as a meta template with ~10 templates calling it instead of {{Infobox}}.

Even if, and it's a mighty big if considering the potential uphill battle you would have with other Projects to "give up" how they are currently handling infoboxing wide swaths of the content they are looking after, one size is not going to fit all. It either has to be so flexible that allowing separate templates creates a better form of standardization it will be so rigid that it will be worthless. - J Greb (talk) 21:49, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

You guys just aren't willing to accept it. These were created in there own wikiprojects, before this wikiproject existed. It's not that big of an "if", you're just not trying to think hard on the possibility nor even a compromise. Though, i'm not going to say only "1" fits all, i'm definitely thinking the way the current setup is bias per media. Now from now on, its best you all at least try to make a compromise at this point. we can't deny the current setup is bias.Bread Ninja (talk) 20:56, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

And in its way trying to migrate to Infobox character is biassing against media or source. It also has a negative effect of telling other projects their view on consistency of infoboxes and on what should/should not be in them is irrelevant. Animemanga is a perfect example as far as a consistent look to the article infobxes go. They have taken pains to keep them consistent across the board and account for articles that cover topics with more than one aspect. "Compromise" that invalidates how the infoboxes they use work is unlikely to be seen as a compromise any more than using their formatting on all the other articles on fictional characters would be. There are similar issues with the Comics project 'boxes since they serve not only to put in the 'box but a basic level of categories related to the characters.

- J Greb (talk) 21:46, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

like i said, you're not even opening up to the idea. it's not that odd. and not that difficult. The wikiproject belongs to everyone who wants to be part of it. The problem is, the point of the wikiproject. Is it simply just fixing all fictional characters? There has to be more consistency than just that. If this was a task force, maybe....but it's a full-fledge wikiproject, so we should provide more than updates and request of helping other articles. Compromise doesn't invalidate anything...don'tmake this any more difficult....because it's not.....My proposal has more benefit than anything else. WHy should fictional characters have key info only per the media they came from if certain number of them come from multiple media. Look at what Jinnai's comment on the VG character infobox discussion to at least get the idea i'm trying to put across. It's not bias if the focus will be general media rather than media-specific.Bread Ninja (talk) 01:09, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

The reason it is not a task force is because this is not a task force for just one thing. We cover fictional characters of all kinds, and being a task force of a specific project would make such a focus impossible. We provide for any discussion whatsoever. The fact of the matter is that there is a significant amount of discussion on this talk page, and it is hardly inactive enough to reduce it to a task force, nor are any of its focuses redundant. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 01:21, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Eghh.....the point i'm trying to make, is that it's not a individual project...rather just a place to find something that somehow might attract other users, but theres no guarantee......unless, we choose to make something worth bringing up. Lets stay on subject though.Bread Ninja (talk) 05:33, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Now considering there is a general Character infobox, makes me even more sure we dont need specialized character infoboxes per other wikiproject demands such as comics, anime/manga, and video games if they all meet the same criteria of a general fictional character. i admit though some of them have something others don't that could be used on the general one. such as publisher.Bread Ninja (talk) 07:20, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

There are many different ways of handling a character. For instance, for Star Wars they have a "homeworld". Now, for a lot of other infoboxes "Homeworld" would be incredibly odd to put in. And some series that only have human characters really don't need any "species" parameters. Video games characters are almost never depicted in live-action (I can think of only one exception, and that was in cutscenes). Film characters? Almost always, but occasionally in CGI. For anime, it's practically impossible to do live-action bits. For VG and anime, voice actors are much more important than any portrayal, so voice actors tends to put above "Portrayal". The idea of using separate voices for english and japanese is a mostly video game trait, while anime may change voices when dubbed it's less of a noted characteristic. And how many VG characters are "drawn" like those in comics? Admittedly, there are some, but mostly it's either CGI or CGI made to look like drawings. Etc. Harry Blue5 (talk • contribs) 08:50, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

You're not seeing the bigger picture. You don't even question what you say is absolute truth. You're trying to say "this one has this parameter, therefore it's important regardless of whether the parameter actually is important". And guess what? It's all the same, different wording. Do we need to know who specifically "drew" the character? For all we know, it could've been dozens of animators regardless if the 1 original creator was added in. same with CGI. It doesn't matter if the character was drawn by, built up by bits on a computer, or any of that stuff because it's not key information. I mean lets look at this one bit at a time. For star wars, arguably it could be put in question if we should even mention if they should have a homeworld, heck most of the characters don't even mention or put any emphasis on their homeworld other than Darth Vader. Maybe we should put all specific in-universe information in subtemplates to avoid such bias from the article. Not that i'm against different categories of in-universe subtemplates. Just subtempaltes specifically made per series even knowing that would make the articles bias. Am i the only one here who doesn't want bias articles or are all of you happy and not want even a compromise? 1)there's nothing specific for you to go against at all. So the real discussion should be how to avoid making these templates bias (yes its wrong. don't bother bringing that up into question.)

Did you even look at the other infobox character templates to be sure what you said was valid?Bread Ninja (talk) 09:36, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry but you don't seem to be interested in a discussion, instead you're shouting "I'm right and you guys just don't get it." You argue against bias, but instead propose we show bias for our own group. Actually that's as far as I can tell...a lot of what you keep saying is coming across as well...kinda arrogant rambling, even if you may not mean it as such.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:43, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Half the time they didn't get the idea. for example, they come strong and hard about how wrong i am, when they didn't even read it. for example, i never said "1" size fits all. yet it was mentioned against me. the setup was so that no one can go against the idea. But somehow they arrogantly do. If you look at the facts, it becomes clearer. Everyone here is putting limit. And yeah, there is. everytime i see an argument brought up with similar discussion. Rambling? you decide. It's plain and simple from my side. And to be honest, i see it as more as "closed-minded" and i don't generalize people, i just think that makes it difficult to get ppl interested. there's no reason to go against a proposal to discuss a change, rather than pro/con an actual change. it's like voting to vote for a president and one wants to say no we shouldn't vote. (no i'm not claiming to be president).

Look it's plain and simple. Just be willing to see it all. Before making another comment against me, why not all of you take a look at these infoboxes.Bread Ninja (talk) 15:16, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree that some of the sub-infoboxes have unnecessary parameters. But most of them do work. While homeworld, race, or even alliance may be trivial to some characters, it is an important aspect of other characters. Thus, some sub-boxes have it, and some don't. I agree that when the summer starts, and most people have more time, then we will do a very huge discussion on each box to see what needs to go. After that happens, we might find that the consensus is leaning towards a singular sub-box. Let not get ahead of ourselves though. Like I have been trying to tell you, we just started, and we are trying to get everything set up and organized as a project. Thus, this is not at the top of our priority list at the moment. In the future, we may even want to re-organize all the categories, or fix all the image rationales, but that discussion is for another day, because nothing is as important as the actual prose of the article. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 15:28, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

it's not.....i'm trying to say the parameters are so close they barely pass off as individual character infoboxes (not really, just giving the benefit of the doubt). But whatever. I'm jsut tired of people shooting down what they dont even know.Bread Ninja (talk) 15:56, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Break: A more direct approach

Ok i'm starting to think this can't wait considering the questioning of certain parameters are going to be brought up more. And i think the problem we're waiting is due to it being time consuming. so I'll be doing most of the proposals here. So lets start of with this so you can all get the idea instead of just shooting down entire idea. Anymore opposing wil have to be done one by one, and a reason behind it.

• Parameters that fictional character infoboxes that are approved for universal fictional character infobox:
  • First Appearance
  • Created by
  • Voiced by
  • Designed by
  • Portrayed by
  • Publisher (but could be renamed to something more ambiguous)
• Parameters of the VG character infobox that are in question:
  • JapanActor; seems like undue weight
  • MotionCapture; its just a more specific form of saying "portrayed by"
  • FirstGame; if character did not originate from video game, then no point focusing on their first game appearance.
• Parameters of the animanga character infobox that are in question:
  • All Parameters in Profile section of the infobox; Best suited to be in an in-universe subtemplate
• Parameters of the comics character infobox that are in question:
  • All Parameters in In-story information section; As per same reasons as per animanga.
• templates that are in questioned and be challenged to be deleted:
  • All infobox templates or in-universe subtemplates in Wikipedia:WikiProject Fictional characters/Templates other than General, VG, animanga and Template:Infobox comics character (for now. if everyone agrees to the ones questioned than it will practically be 3 general infoboxes, and end up deleting those aswell and i looked at each infobox on this carefully carefully before suggesting almost all of them)
• Proposed in-universe sub-templates:
  • • Age
    • Gender
    • Occupation
    • Alias
  • Science-fiction & Fantasy specific:
    • Home world
    • Species

this is all i got, if you think my proposal is slightly off but a different approach could be done, be my guest and say whatever it is. Other than that, approve and oppose which ever one you find wrong.Bread Ninja (talk) 17:28, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I think this will have to be done on a subpage like Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fictional characters/Infobox discussion, with headers for everything, so it can be more organized, and people can comment on each thing. Note that this discussion will not be fast, and may take a long while for everybody to participate. We don't want only 5 people participating. I will make that page now. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 18:32, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I created the discussion about the VG infobox. I don't see why you want to remove the in-universe info from those boxes. Why not just add the information to VG character and call it a day? As for all the boxes on that list, some of them might warrant keeping such as {{Infobox fictional race}}. As for the others, we will have to talk to the people who are involved in those series and explain to them that it is best to move to a general template. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 19:29, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Two immediate toughts:

• "...that are approved for universal fictional character infobox..." is more than a bit pompous.
• The "Any in-story info must go" starting point is overly antagonistic. Every suggestion or comment that has come from Bread Ninja seems to involve excising this information as an integral and intractable point.

And on a bit of reflection: Right now the widely used 'boxes are not broken or in need of "fixing". Constant poking at it is starting to seem, at least, counterproductive.

- J Greb (talk) 22:24, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok i didn't understand the first one, but the second one you clearly misunderstood (at least use a direct quote than mincing my words) or maybe you reject the idea of in-universe information being in subtemplates and on the main ones? if so, then the level of inconsistency of reasoning has obscured way too far. As i recall, its ok to put them in subtemplates.

the infoboxes aren't exactly "broken", because they're doing what they're intended. However, the intended reasons are good-faith, but they are not the best reasons to be executed in the first place. J Greb, you only rejected 2 specific ones and 1 of them is most likely misunderstanding. Is it so hard to see how much bias these templates have?

the idea is to make a universal infobox template, and different genre and/or notable category in-universe sub-templates. Making them per series is a very very BAD idea. Its practically against the principles of wikipedia. Whats the down side to my proposal? the only potential excuse there is that it will limit certain parameters of certain specific characters, and really, i don't see much of a down-side. Limiting information on an infobox won't do much damage, if any at all.

But like I've said....from this point on, only reject individually, as i want to see why my proposal is such a bad idea. I'm starting to think the reason why its so bad is because its coming from me.Bread Ninja (talk) 11:06, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, there was a misspelling in the first one.

And I think you need to check the use of "series", are you using it as "all comics" are a series since there is a specific template for those characters or are using it as "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" is a series?

Beyond that. There seems to be little to no problem with media based base templates. For what ever reasons, Comics, Animemanga, and VG opted long ago to not use the generic one and develop their own solutions to an infobox for characters that is consistent or works with the other infoboxes those projects have. That, for the most part, Film, TV, Novel/Book, Radio and so on have not gone their own way is again a choice made long ago and has resulted in a great deal of use, and in some eyes abuse, of generic 'box.

Yes, some series/franchise specific projects or "near" projects have created their own infoboxes, and those fall in to 3 categories: table baseed, {{Infobox}} based, and {{Infobox character}} based. All have the advantage for the editors regularly using them of consistent content limited to what that project has deemed necessary. For those with minor use, I can see converting to an Infobox character base, but keeping the fields and parameters that the editors are currently using. But not forcing the use of Infobox character with new subtemplates. For those with a lot of use that aren't already Infobox character based - Star Trek and Doctor Who comes to mind - should be discussed with the project actively using them to see if 1) they agree to changing how they do things and 2) the 'boxes can be converted.

- J Greb (talk) 13:20, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

That's "they did it for some reason, whether or not the reason was good enough, we will have to accept it" excuse. Characters by media would have to be much more general than that. The Animanga and video game have 1 to 2 different parameters at best. this is why i asked to look at the infoboxes before opposing. In fact, the animanga infobox character barely has any different from the general, it looks like copy of it. The only one that's most different is the Comics, which i only agree to one parameter to be added in the general character infobox (publisher).

The problem i see, is no one wants enforcement. and it happens a lot in these wikiprojects. Afraid of a big change that will mean a lot of fixing and removing certain parameters. Because a certain someone "likes it" or finds it too much work to remove these parameters. But guess what? The waiting game does things worst.

These parameters being used regularly isn't the problem nor a good reason to keep them. Subtemplates will do more beneficial and avoid such bias parameters. The more general, the better regardless of what fictional information that character of that series focuses on. If you think about it, We do this, the aspect of "key information" will change to things a lot more general, to fictional information being much more simpler.

its better to have the general character infobox. there are templates separating character per media for 1 or 2 parameters. The VG character infobox seems to have the most generic form to work with. If anything people can join in on the discussion, but i don't see a real reason to oppose this proposal regardless if one doesn't like it. However, i can see people adding in their own proposals to work along-side this one, possibly changing small certain aspects. but for now, this proposal does alot more, removes fictional information that is added in for sake of filling such parameter but not really due to being true key information.

For example, "homeworld" on star wars. Star Wars hardly ever puts any emphasis on which world they come from, the only one they have is Anakin Sky Walker as it mentioned in two films. IN the end, these parameters are made by due to fan-cruft, not real key information.Bread Ninja (talk) 14:07, 14 May 2011 (UTC)