Template talk:Character
Contents
Template Layot
The new layout for this template which puts two character templates next to eachother instead of under is really annoying. As many character pages are about two characters instead of one and two templates next to eachother is blocking many info. Also, many articles such as Gunter and Ernst have to share templates for both characters. I think the old layout should return.Dr. Ralph Wiggum 12:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Captilazation
Shouldn't all the info be captalized?Dr. Ralph Wiggum 01:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC) yeah.if you change it would it make all the character pages go different?Sgtcook 12:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Easy Reference to the box
{{Character|
image=[[Image:|200px]]|
name=|
gender=|
hair=|
age=|
job=|
relatives=Unknown|
appearance=[[]]|
voiced by= [[]]|
}}
--Kingcjc 19:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
clear:right
I hope you'll find my minor edit helpfull. — TulipVorlax 23:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
making it clear
i guess them lines weren't meant to appear. On the one i'm basing it of, they have blank lines. So i'm going to find another example and try theres.--Sgtcook 16:58, September 8, 2009 (UTC)
- Think i know how to do it but i've got to go, be back later.--Sgtcook 17:02, September 8, 2009 (UTC)
{{Female}}
When you add the template, it adds ="hiddenStructure" on the page. Any ideas on why, and any fixes?--Sgtcook (My Talk Page) 22:01, March 19, 2010 (UTC)
Relatives
I get the standard of within the episode so I'm not trying to make some kind of comprehensive family tree within the infobox listing off anybody and everybody, but only relatives for real-world characters notable enough to have pages on this website of their own (which is a similar standard on English Wikipedia for its infoboxes guidelines). Someone else reading the article can click on it means another page with more ads viewed. For example with Nicole Kidman it's never mentioned within any episode she's a professional actress or her nationality being Australian American. I'm trying to write a total and complete biographical article, but it's the minimum of real world knowledge applied for the infobox to wikilink to other characters already notable enough to have his/her own page. Look at the Nicole Kidman's Wikipedia entry where the infobox names and wikilinks her father as he's a prominent psychologist in Australia with his own article and while Nicole Kidman obviously also has a mother her article's infobox's relatives section doesn't list her mother as she (so far) does not have her own separate Wikipedia entry. That was the kind of model I was using and would just like it to be considered for this Simpsons wiki? I get wanting to stay just citing and referencing stuff within the Simpsonverse canon rather than more and more real-world additional information since if a person truly wants to learn more about someone like Nicole Kidman, there's plenty of other online resources to do that, but it's just a minimal addition along the lines of profession or nationality (or naming the capital on articles on a country or state) of one or two wikilinks to other characters notable enough to get articles here. Snowball II (talk) 08:12, February 18, 2024 (EST)
- With celebrity professions, it's assumed that they are the same as real life due to the fact they're celebrities in the first place. However, with spouses, it's more complicated. Because of how the floating timeline works in the show, we don't know whether they're supposed to be married to someone at that time in the show. Plus, the show does take some creative liberties with celebrities. i.e. Bob Hope was designed to look way younger than he actually was at the time, and I'm pretty sure that Taika Waititi isn't a criminal irl. Because of these creative liberties the show takes, unless the show states that they were married to a certain person, or even implies it (in the case of Cruise and Kidman being on a magazine cover together), then we don't know for sure that they were married in the show. It's a similar policy to our real-world deaths policy, where unless a character is confirmed dead in the show, even if they're deal in real life, they're marked as alive still. Because real life isn't the show. The Solar Dragon 08:36, February 18, 2024 (EST)
- I really don't wish to get into the merits of the guidelines on alive or decease status since that seems like a separate can of worms.
- It's never pointed out directly that Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman are married, but seems fine to go with it. Not trying to defy Simpsons canon, but also don't want to obfuscate either. Couldn't the creative liberties go with real-world unless canon makes implicit different from the real-world. The standard "we can assume" seems like a hard to standard to apply so nationality and profession are the same, but also have different relatives. The Taika Waititi example seems as a different standard since he isn't a known thief in real life, he might not have the same relatives in the show. Plus unlike alive or decease status (i.e. band members of Green Day are actually alive (although haven't checked today)) I'm trying to think of multiple examples where a real-world character on the show make beyond clear does not have the same relatives within the Simpsons reality as they do in the real-world. William Howard Taft didn't have an extramarital affair with a fictional Mr. Burns' mother, but within the show he does which means that's what on his article yet doesn't change who were his real life relatives are versus the show's version of him. Jessica Simpson is the Simpson family's cousin, but while that different than reality still unsure how it would change who her little sister or husband were. And beyond plenty examples of real-world people have the same relatives within the show particular when the other relative is also well-known in his/her own right. Snowball II (talk) 09:32, February 18, 2024 (EST)
- The show toke the effort to find the actual name of Vincent Price's real life unfamous grandson is an indication of a default towards reality like nationalities or professions unless the "creative liberties" is in service of an overt gag.
