Template talk:Infobox James Bond character
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
 This article is part of WikiProject James Bond, an attempt to improve content and create better coordination between articles related to the James Bond 007 genre of books, films, characters and related articles. You can help in improvement by editing Infobox James Bond character or related pages. |
|
| Template | This article has been rated as template-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
|
[edit] Use
For the bgcolor use the color codes:
- #000 for bad guys (black)
- #039 for good guys (blue)
K1Bond007 21:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Suggest changing "Current status" to "Status"
It looks a little silly for us to be using terms such as "Current status" when referring to characters who appeared on film 30-40 years ago or more. I suggest we change the term to "Status". If there's no objection I'll make the change. 23skidoo 23:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- On 25 May 2007, 70.244.121.194 removed status section; redundant and leads to too much OR. In addition to possible original research, I also consider the status possible spoiler.--Jusjih 23:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- I support the removal. Aside from the OR issues, it also becomes confusing since many of the character articles also refer to the original novels, plus now that the film series has relaunched characters previously marked deceased (such as Blofeld) could potentially become active again. Best not to go there. Although there seems to be a movement to remove spoiler warnings from Wikipedia, I agree that this was too much of a spoiler. 23skidoo 16:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Here's a simple reason why you should remove the status section altogether. Literary present tense applies to fiction. As such, all stories are told "in the present." This means that the "status" of a given character is meaningless. The character is alive at the beginning of the movie and dead when you finish watching it and then alive again when you watch it again. Movies and novels are not events and don't exist in the past. Therefore, it is improper to say that So-and-So is "currently dead." The next time you watch the movie, the character is very much alive again. I've gone ahead and deleted that section. --Hnsampat (talk) 23:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- For now, I support deleting that part from readers' view as a spoiler. If anyone wants to show the "status", how about "status at the end"? Even without it, clicking the page edit button will still allow the public to peek.--Jusjih (talk) 01:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- I actually thought the Status field was removed ages ago. Was it put back or something? I checked and it's still gone. It should still be gone, because ignoring the spoiler issue, the fact is it presents too much of an in-world view, which Wikipedia is trying to discourage with fictional character articles, and,perhaps even more importantly, it's pretty redundant considering the vast vast majority of characters for whom this box would apply are single-appearance characters in books or movies, anyway. Except for a few recurring characters and, of course, the regulars, there's no point in indicating "status". Plus, do you consider the movies by themselves? The novels? What if a character is killed off in the movies but left alive in the novels or vice-versa? This falls under the "don't go there" arena and there's no need to bring it back. 23skidoo (talk) 01:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
