Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:Add "Played/Voiced By" to infobox
This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made in the Senate Hall or new Consensus Track pages rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record.
The result of the debate was oppose. Tommy-Macaroni 15:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
The result of the debate was oppose. Tommy-Macaroni 15:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
A lot of wiki's have characters info cards include who they are played by, or voiced by. This makes it easy for the user to come to the wiki and see the actor for a character. In this wiki, this info is at the bottom of the page. The template for the info card doesn't have this info required either.
An example of this in code would be:
|actor=Liam Neeson
This could be placed At the bottom of the "Biographical information" section —Unsigned comment by HyperLordBender (talk • contribs)
Support
Oppose
- It conflicts with the in-universe documentation style of the infoboxes, and such information already fits pretty well in Behind the Scenes sections. Also, the same actors don't always play the same characters, so the infoboxes would end up clogged with tons of actors from games and shows. Obi-Wan Kenobi would have Alec Guinness, Ewan McGregor, James Arnold Taylor and Stephen Stanton all listed as actors who portrayed him. It would be the "Members" section of species infoboxes all over again. Jedi Sarith LeKit (talk) 21:23, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
- As above. Immora (talk) 21:25, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
- Infoboxes are meant for IU information; Liam Neeson, as far as we know, doesn't exist in the Star Wars universe. Please see the Behind the Scenes section for out-of-universe information. VergenceScatter (talk) 21:25, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
- I oppose purely because it is an OOU type of information and because it fits into the bts very well, as the above people have mentioned. Wok142 (talk) 21:26, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
- (Behind the scenes) - - -OOM 224 ༼༽{talk}༼༽ 21:27, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
- What they said – it doesn't fit with this wiki's style. SilverSunbird (talk) 21:28, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
- I agree with the above comments, it wouldn't fit with In Universe information. Ramsay Sanders (talk) 21:38, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
- Per all above. IU infobox is for IU info. RattsT (talk) 21:40, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
- Everyone else has pretty much nailed all the main reasons why this shouldn't happen. I will add/reiterate that the vertical length of infoboxes in general complicates article formatting enough with the narrow width of pages we have to work with. The last thing we need to be doing is adding more data here. Ideally, infoboxes should never extend past the Table of contents, because the longer it gets, the worse the page looks. This is a nice example of an infobox that is way too long with too much information. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 21:41, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
- Per above.
21:41, 1 February 2021 (UTC)Erebus Chronus (talk)
- Per everything everyone else has said, this isn't our style. - AV-6R7 (talk) 21:49, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
- Tommy-Macaroni 21:50, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
- Per above. JRT2010 (talk) 22:03, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
- 01miki10 Open comlink 22:06, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
- Rakhsh (talk) 22:10, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
- Per above, not the style of this wiki. JediMasterMacaroni
(Conversation) 22:19, 1 February 2021 (UTC) - Fan26 (Talk) 22:22, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
- Not suitable for this wiki, and per above. --Vitus InfinitusTalk 22:38, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
- 1358 (Talk) 16:08, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
- I strongly dislike it. And we got rid of the publishing eras within the infobox on similar reasoning.
Winterz (talk) 16:40, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Discussion
- Just noting that the correct terminology is "infobox" (see Wookieepedia:Glossary for more information). I've moved the title of this forum to reflect this so that people will better understand what is being discussed here. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 21:33, 1 February 2021 (UTC)