Template talk:Infobox animanga character

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Anime and manga, which aims to improve and expand anime and manga related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page.
Template This is a template and is not rated on the assessment scale.

Contents

[edit] Profile parameters

Do we really need hair color, eye color, blood type? -- Ned Scott 04:08, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I've asked the same question at WT:ANIME with almost no one saying anything about it. --Farix (Talk) 17:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
I've been noticing that some editors have been using the auxiliary fields to include that kind of information. So I've added a note in the documentation that such information should not be included using the auxiliary fields. --Farix (Talk) 21:37, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Blood type is related to a horoscope-like belief in Japan, and any blood type field could be linked to Japanese blood type theory of personality. -Malkinann 16:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

But blood type is generally a very trivial detail. --Farix (Talk) 17:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Really? I'd say it's about as important as a date of birth - dates of birth are sometimes chosen to reflect a zodiac sign, and blood types are similarly chosen to reflect a personality type. If it's linked in the template, then people have a whole article to go to to explain the 'why is a fictional character's bloodtype needed?' question. -Malkinann 00:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
No one seems to agree with you that it is as important to DOB. And frankly, DOB isn't that important either. But sometimes, it can be a plot point, such as characters who share the same birthdays (Sakura and Syaoran in TRC) or whose DOB is significant to their character (Kimihiro Watanuki who is named after his birthday and incidentally has the same birthday as Sakura and Syaoran). —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheFarix (talk • contribs) 00:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Original Japanese names

Something I've been wrestling for a bit, but what should we do when the original Japanese name of a character is different from the English name? I'm not talking about Kanji or Romaji forms of the same name, but when the cames are completely different (ex. Usagi Tsukino vs. Serena Tsukino or any of the Bayblade characters). I thought about adding a new field to handle these names, but I am afraid that other editors will misuse the field to add the Kanji or Romaji forms of the character's name. I'm also not sure how to name the field. {{{original name}}} for the variable. --Farix (Talk) 16:08, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that there are two options:
  1. Use the original Japanese names in the infobox and use the devider as English adaptations, with the dub information, including names, there.
  2. Use the oaux fields for the dub names. (As it is out of universe)
Which option is preferred?
G.A.S 20:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
How I finally dealt with it on the Bayblade and Digimon articles was to use the English name as the box's title and used an oaux field to include the Japanese name. There really isn't a need to create a separate "English adaptation" section if all you are dealing with in the infobox is just a name change. --Farix (Talk) 00:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Affiliations

Here is another one I'm wrestling with. Just how wide spread are affiliation details among different series? I know that Gundam, Sailor Moon, and Naruto has the field, but is it really important to include? And if so, is it frequent enough to be included as a standard field rather then using an auxiliary field? --Farix (Talk) 02:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I never understood the purpose of that field to begin with, since every time a character changes factions you have to add another entry to it. I'd suggest just using one of the auxiliary fields, or the occupation field "Konoha ninja" gets across who they work for just as well as the affiliation field would.
For that matter, since when do that many anime characters really have character classes? Can't that also be auxiliary? --tjstrf talk 18:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
It's more applicable to "school" anime and manga were which class a character is in is relevant to the story. But using it as an RPG class is a minor secondary use. --Farix (Talk) 00:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Out of universe fields

Instead of adding performed by as a field, would 2 or 3 auxiliary fields not be more useful, with proper documentation listing it as a possible use? G.A.S 13:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

You mean auxiliary fields for the out-of-universe section? Doable and perhaps the most reasonable approach for live action performers. It may also be a good way to deal with the original Japanese name problem I mentioned above. --Farix (Talk) 14:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, for the OOU section.
For the Japanese name problem, refer here: There is currently no place to add the real name(Indicated with **); but the English name problem has been solved. ::G.A.S 15:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Ok, three oaux* fields added. Try them out and see how they work. --Farix (Talk) 17:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Names

I have been struggling when the infobox title is not necessarily the same as the character's real name (eg Sailor Moon (character) where the character's name is not equal to the article name). What is the best solution:

  1. Use a different infobox?
  2. Add a new field at the top of the profile section?
  3. Use oaux# field (least desirable?)

G.A.S 20:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Or put the character's real name in the name field and the Sailor Sensei name as an alias. I never really understand the Sailor Moon naming conventions. --Farix (Talk) 00:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Related templates found

I have found some related infoboxes that needs updating to the new one. G.A.S 11:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Template:Sailor Moon villain group (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
    This one is not a character infobox, but a group infobox. Perhaps it should be reformatted to have a similar look to the animanga character infobox, but that is an unrelated matter. --Farix (Talk) 13:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
    Ah yes, I see now... Are group infoboxes that uncommon? G.A.S 13:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
    They are not very common. Whether they are uncommon is something I really don't know. --Farix (Talk) 13:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bold text?

Ahem I seem to have noticed that all of the information suddenly became bold. Can someone please change it? It looks funny for the Name to be bold followed by the Character Name to be bold as well. --Hanaichi 09:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

That is because another editor is unnecessarily changing the template's code to use wikimarkup and metatemplates, breaking it in the process. --Farix (Talk) 12:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
A minor fix. The changes are necessary because the whole point of Wikipedia is to let people reuse our content, only the current markup that mixes HTML and wikitable is incompatible with just about every other wiki out there. -- Ned Scott 20:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
The changes are completely unnecessarily, are not require, makes the code harder to read with the nested ifs, and you should just stop it. We don't need to worry about if code on Wikipedia can be reused by other wikis. I also think that the outcome of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jguk applies here, while the "styling" question being just over which code format to use. The use of HTML table tags are acceptable in templates as there is not policy or guideline against there use. If HTML table tags should not be used, why are they available to begin with? --Farix (Talk) 21:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
"We don't need to worry about if code on Wikipedia can be reused by other wikis" that couldn't be more wrong. Farix, I'm not sure why you are pushing this issue, and I normally don't have disputes with you, but I'm getting the impression you are defending your territory. You're not the only one who edits animanga templates, the decision is not yours alone to make. Regardless of the use of wikitable or HTML table, the "difficulty" is nothing more than familiarity. The entire point of being a free encyclopedia is for re-use, and it will become a higher priority all across the wiki. -- Ned Scott 22:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Not to mention the whole reason we use wikitables over HTML tables in the first place. While it might not be forbidden, it's always been encouraged and strongly recommended to use wikitable markup over HTML table markup whenever possible. The use of mixed HTML with wikitable was never meant to be a long term fix for what was simply a minor problem with parser functions. -- Ned Scott 23:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry about getting frustrated, but I really don't see the problem here. In any case, I'm not going to argue about it, since it's not really that important. I'm sorry if I offended you at all. -- Ned Scott 23:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Power levels

Only one series uses "power level" in relation to characters and that is Dragon Ball Z. For starters, this is a very series oriented field and the numerous auxiliary fields are more the capable of handling it. Second, this is actually a very trivial in-universe detail which only appears during the Saiyana nd Freeza arcs and is then forgotten. --Farix (Talk) 20:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Aside from that, there are Daizenshū #7's Dragon Ball power levels (by Toriyama's staff), and some characters in YuYu Hakusho and Shaman King have power levels as well. There are others, just can't remember ATM. Why do you keep ignoring the discussion here? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I still don't see how the auxiliary field can't handle this. As for "ignoring" that other discussion, it is because it's irrelevant. But, why do you keep incising on this very limited use field when you can use on of the auxiliaries? --Farix (Talk) 20:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Reiterate please. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
There's a "paux" parameter editors can use for any other element (like "power level") not available by default in the infobox. See Amuro Ray for an example.--Nohansen (talk) 21:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
What need is there for a "power level" field when such specialized information can be handle with one of the many auxiliary fields? You have so far refused to answer that question. --Farix (Talk) 21:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Not so much as "refused", more like didn't understand what you meant. So you two suggest something like this "paux"? Why not mention that parameter in the first place Farix? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
*sigh* I did in the very first comment here, but you weren't listening. Instead, you went strait to edit waring without even looking at what you were edit waring over. Next time, read WP:BRD, which you completely faid to do. --Farix (Talk) 21:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I saw that, then left replies. Wish ppl would listen more often. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
"Power levels" sounds like a clear case for the aux parameters. Not sure what the big dea- IT'S OVER NINE THOUSAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAND (sorry, couldn't resist). -- Ned Scott 04:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Would it not have been easier to update said articles to use the auxiliary fields at the same time the first parameter edit was reverted? It would have saved a lot of trouble...
And secondly, I believe the template should be permanently protected since it is transcluded on over 500! pages.
G.A.S 05:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Style

Just wondering, should we make this look more like the Template:Infobox animanga? I'm not sure if it matters much either way, but it would seem a little more consistent. Then again, I might just be thinking too hard. -- Ned Scott 07:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

No. I think the current style looks cleaner and it matches that used by {{Infobox character}}. Personally, I think that {{Infobox animanga}} styling should be changed to match and it would be considerable less HTML code being outputted. Of the project's infobox templates, it is actually the odd ball. --Farix (Talk) 11:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)