Template talk:Infobox Narnia character

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Usage

A Narnia Character infobox may be used to summarize information about a particular character in a standard manner. Many of the parameters can be omitted if desired; the choice of which parameters are appropriate for a particular character is left to the discretion of the article editors.

The infobox should be added using the {{Infobox Narnia character}} template, as shown below:

{{Infobox Narnia character
|name=
|image=
|caption=
|race=
|nation=
|gender=
|title=
|birthplace=
|spouse=
|parents=
|children=
|siblings=
|otherFamily=
|major1=
|major2=
|major3=
|major4=
|major5=
|major6=
|major7=
|film1=
|film2=
|film3=
|film4=
|}}

• name – the first and last name of the character.
• image – optional – an image for the infobox. The image must be given in the sijple form: Example.jpg which will be expanded into: [[Image:Example.jpg|240px]].
• caption – optional – the text to be placed below the image.
• race – the race of the character; preferably linked to the appropriate article. (e.g. "Human", "Marsh-wiggle" or "unique")
• nation – the nationality of the character; preferably linked to the appropriate article.(e.g. "Narnian" or "English")
• gender – if unknown, write "Unknown", otherwise link "Male" or "Female"
• title – optional – the single most important title that applies to this character.
• birthplace – optional – where this character was born. If unknown leave blank.
• spouse' – optional – wife or husband of this character. If know to exist, but unnamed use "unnamed".
• parents – optional – parents of this character. If know to exist, but unnamed leave blank.
• children – optional – children of this character. If know to exist, but unnamed use "1 unnamed".
• siblings – optional – brother and sisters of this character. If know to exist, but unnamed use "1 unnamed".
• otherFamily – optional – any other family members. Name the family member and include relationship in parenthesis. Use shortest form of relationship and describe in detail in the article. (e.g."Eustace Scrubb" (cousin))
• major1 – the first book in the series (in publication order), in which this character has the largest role. (This is the only "major" parameter which is required. If the character isn't really "major" in any of the books, they don't deserve an infobox, and probably not the article either.)
• major2-7 – optional – other books in which this character appears. Do not include books in which the character is simply mentioned.
• film1-4 – optional – list upto 4 people who portrayed this character and the adaptation in which they appeared. Adapations may be film, television, radio or theater, but should only include noteworthy adaptations. Adaptations should be listed in chronalogical order. (e.g. listing: 2005 Disney film: Georgie Henley)

[edit] Discussion

You might notice a few inconsistancies in this infobox. They are there because I wanted to see how various options looked. Here are the ones that I'm claiming are intentional:

1. Books vs. Portrayal: one is centered and the other is not. Which way do you like best for each?
2. Books vs. Portrayals: one has lines (cells) seperating it the other does not. Which is best for each?
3. Family vs. Books: one heading is bold and the other isn't.

I don't know if this is the best spot for discussion, simply because only people who are really interested will come here, but maybe that gives us a chance to hash it out before exposing it further. LloydSommerer 18:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the colons should be deleted in the family section. And I prefer the center align for the portrayals, and the cells separating the different elements. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 01:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Colons were left over from the infobox that I stole everything from. I'll remove those. I prefer the right align for the portrayals and have no strong feelings about the cells (no cells takes up less vertical space if that is a consideration). LloydSommerer 18:00, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

That's all right about the alignment. However, is this going to replace {{Narnia character}}? I much prefer this infobox. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 18:56, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

By the way, would you mind making a usage information box? I don't know the right term for it – something that looks like this. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 18:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, they were both proposed on the talk page. I would like to see us come to some consensus of which one to use (I think the general feeling was that we should have one). Tim did his first, but it really was the inspiration for this one (though they do not look much alike). It would be better if someone other than Tim or I took the lead in reaching a consensus. Do these look okay for instuctions? And do you want to take the lead in this? LloydSommerer 19:58, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I created Wikipedia:WikiProject Narnia/Sandbox/Infobox Comparison to compare the two infoboxes, and alerted project members on the project talk page. I would suggest you just make the name of the character in yours a bit bigger, and then it's good. Also, since all of the family parameters are optional, the blue header "Family" should only appear if one of those parameters is used. I haven't a clue how to do that, though. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 22:31, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

You're right, the name needed to be bigger (and is now). I altered the other font sizes a bit to make them more readable and made the headers more neutral (not that I care what color people decide to use). I'm not sure how to do or logic, so I can't get rid of the family line (it depends on neither A nor B nor C nor D being present). My intention is to ask for someone else to do that (and to generally make sure I haven't made any mistakes with the infobox). I've only worked on a few templates, and this one was by far the most complicated at the time ({{narnia-WP}} is actually qite a bit worse). LloydSommerer 00:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

(restart indent) I'll inquire at the Village Pump. Looks good, though! --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 01:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

We got some responses here. See if you can make heads or tails of it. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 02:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The first guy who responded was right on, but I didn't understand what he was saying until the example. It should work as you suggested now. I also made some adjustments for when the only family is other. Is it an improvement or not (shown without image to samve space)? LloydSommerer 03:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

That's really good. I'm glad you understood it, because it was way over my head. :-) I'm taking out the otherFamily to see what will happen. And I'm about to head over to the main project talk space to see if we've reached any sort of consensus. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 22:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)