Forum:CT:Skin color in infobox

Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:Skin color in 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 allow and support the creation of "skin color" fields in character infoboxes. Graestan(Talk) 01:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

At the latest Mofference, it was suggested that a "skin color" field be added to character infoboxes to go along with the eye and hair color fields, though there was no consensus and it was suggested to make a CT for it.

Basically, the proposal is to add a "skin color" field to the infobox; if we got a specific reference somewhere, we could go with that, but I think the general idea would be "light" or "dark" or "tan," etc, for humans, rather than "black" or "white" or whatever, and "red and white" for funky colored aliens, etc. Obviously we'd just leave it blank for characters we have no description or pictures of, or if there was some debate or ambiguity with an image. This would be a useful reference, particularly for characters with a description but no image, as physical descriptions anywhere in the main body seem unpopular for some reason.

There were a few objections to this at the Mofference, though I don't recall any actual reasons against it. Some said it might lead to OR, since skin color isn't really given in the text that often for characters without pictures. Well, the same can be said about eye color and to a lesser extent hair color (fields which we decided to keep), so I don't see the problem there. Someone also said that eye color is given in lots of sources like the NEGtC but skin color isn't. Well, aside from the obligatory "We are not the NEGtC!" :-P, I don't get this either; so thirty of so characters have there eye colors listed, but we still include eye colors based off what we see in images, etc. If I missed any opposing points raised at the Mofference, my apologies. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 00:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

EDIT: per Graestan's comment, this would also count for fur color. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 00:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Voting

Support

  1. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 00:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
  2. Eh, why not. Ifindyourlackoffaithdisturbing (Oya Manda!) 00:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
  3. If there is a verifiable description (i.e. "she had olive-colored skin" etc.), why not allow it? It's no less applicable than skin or eye color, and also could be applied to fur color for Bothans, as well as any number of other possibilities. This of course rests on the mandatory sourcing of infoboxes in all instances. Graestan(Talk) 00:40, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
  4. Grand Moff Tranner Imperial Department of Military Research (Comlink) 00:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
  5. I've always thought this would be a good idea. I even considered just shoving it in during one of the infobox code updates. Infoboxes are where distilled facts go, and for many characters this is a plainly stated fact. -- Darth Culator (Talk) 00:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
  6. If we're going to have such ambiguity as eye and hair color, then I say yes to skin. JorrelWiki-shrinkableFraajic 01:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
  7. Can't see why not. Green Tentacle (Talk) 01:40, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
  8. Though I'm not a fan of the idea, I'll support it only if it the skin color comes directly from a source, and there is absolutely no specualtion on the color of it. Just keep it very generalized. DC 02:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
  9. --Borsk Fey'lya Talk 07:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
  10. "First I ordered the omelette, but now I've changed my mind!" Thefourdotelipsis 08:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
  11. Per Graestan. --Jedimca0(Do or Do Not, There is No Try) 08:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
  12. Why not. Unit 8311 12:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
  13. Support. - Mauser 13:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
  14. –K.A.J•T•C•E• 14:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
  15. yah-- DarthBlurrr(I Am the Chosen One) 18:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
  16. Din's Fire 997 23:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
  17. Yes. DarthDragon164BlackdragonDragon's Lair 23:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
  18. Yep, definitely. Darth Fulmenus
  19. Don't see any valid reason why not. - JMAS Hey, it's me! 11:59, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
  20. Lord Hydronium 22:11, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
  21. Facts are facts. Gonk (Gonk!) 14:27, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
  22. Stake black msg 00:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
  23. Let it be known that I am against skin, hair, eyes, etc. being in the infoboxes. However, if we have the other two, we should have this one as well. Master Aban Fiolli {Alpheridies University ComNet} 22:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
  24. Though to Graestan: fur should go under the "hair" field. Since that's what it is. Havac 01:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Nope. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 03:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
  2. From reading too many talk pages around here, and seeing the dumb stuff that people edit war over, I can see this opening a whole can of worms, starting pointless arguments which could have been avoided, and people flouncing all over the site. Pixelle(Talk!) 12:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Well, what can would this open that eye and hair color already hasn't? I haven't seen any edit wars over eye or hair color in recent times, and the lead perpetrator of those kinds of arguments is no longer with us. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 13:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
      • That's all well and good that the one person you believe to be behind that type of stuff is gone, but I stand by the reasons I voted for. That's it from me on this, now onto other things I go :) Thanks, Pixelle(Talk!) 14:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
  3. I want a physical description section for character and species articles. We're just clogging up infoboxes more and more. Soresumakashi 10:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
    • The existence of this wouldn't rule out physical descriptions for characters, and it doesn't have anything to do with species articles (though they should include include a "biology and appearance" section anyway). The infobox is supposed to be a quick reference for readers so they don't have to read entire paragraphs to learn an important fact about the character. There's always going to be repetition between the infobox and the main body, but we keep things like DOB and homeworld even though they will -- should, at least -- be included within the main body. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 11:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
  4. —Xwing328(Talk) 19:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
  5. I have a bad feeling about this. KEJ 12:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
  6. irrelevant NaruHina Talk Anakinsolo 22:07, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
  7. Ozzel 22:17, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments

  • I think skin color would be best suited to the infoboxes of species articles, since in most cases a species's skin color doesn't change (except for Humans and perhaps one or two more species). But I'm not all that opposed to the idea, hence why this is not an oppose vote. Grand Moff Tranner Imperial Department of Military Research (Comlink) 00:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Well, a predominant skin color would certainly be included in a species' article's body somewhere, though one for the infobox probably isn't a bad idea. However, I don't think it's safe to assume most species have the same skin color; we have multicolored Twi'leks, Toydarians, Rodians, Yarkora, Wookiees, Whiphids, Caamasi, Ithorians, Devaronians, Ewoks and Zabraks, as well as many many more. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 00:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I'd support it along the same reasons as Darthchristian noted. However, I am curious as to how one intends to tackle issues like Tott Doneeta, who I've seen at least three different skin colors for, and Sylvar, whose fur and other characteristics change so drastically in DLOTS/TSW and Redemption storylines, she could be mistaken for a completely different character. If these could be addressed satisfactorily, I may be of the mind to support.—Tommy9281 Red lightsaber (Peace is a lie) 23:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Well, for Tott, there are three options: leave it blank; add the most commonly seen skin color, with a ref to explain that it varies in the comics but this is the most common coloration for Tott; or use the most recent non-funky-colored comic image (which in this case would be the PotJ one) and explain in a ref. For example, one could use Sedriss' NEGtC as a reference if Dark Empire II wasn't consistent with the colors. It would be up to the individual editor to choose; if there was any great debate between users, then you could just leave it blank. As for Sylvar's shoddy characterization, I cannot address it satisfactorily. :-P -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 08:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Would this affect creature infoboxes? Soresumakashi 10:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)