Template talk:Infobox Character

Suggestion

Can we change the "Tier" part (for character in Brawl & Melee) to two different rows, one being "Tier position (SSBM)" and the other "Tier position (SSBB)", for example? BALτʀο [ talk ] 23:15, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

No, because this is for articles like Mario (SSBM) or Mario (SSBB), not Mario. Miles (talk) 23:24, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I guess that makes sense. BALτʀο [ talk ] 05:24, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Head icons

I absolutely dislike them and would suggest that they be omitted from this template. There is no particular benefit, from my perspective, to including them, and it serves to clutter the infobox unnecessarily. Miles (talk) 16:41, 12 February 2011 (EST)

Do you have a better idea of how to display them in articles? Toomai Glittershine The SMASH-GINEER 16:49, 12 February 2011 (EST)

Do we need to display them at all? If so, they could go in a row of the infobox of their own toward the bottom, like "In-game icon" or something like that. They just seem to clutter the top. Miles (talk) 16:50, 12 February 2011 (EST)

I'm not really that bothered either way. I included them because Toomai asked, but they're easily snipped (or moved - but not to a row by themselves. My second-preference on where to put them would be beside the series symbol) with no residue if need be. - Reboot (talk) 17:50, 12 February 2011 (EST)

I just wanted them separated from the other images, because they seem to really clutter up the infobox if they're in with the other images. Miles (talk) 11:45, 13 February 2011 (EST)

"Alternate version" field

I'm not sure we should have a field for listing clones. While being a clone may be infobox-worthy, clone-ness is rather disputed outside of SSBM to the point where saying it in the article would be clearer. In any case, labelling the field "Alternate version" is misleading as "Clone of" would be the expected title. Toomai Glittershine Da Bomb 21:48, 27 February 2011 (EST)

It shouldn't be in at all. Saying so and so is a "clone/semi-clone" of a character isn't necessary, and listing a character as so in the infobox is passing it off as a fact, when it is far too disputed to be so. Omega Tyrant 23:44, 27 February 2011 (EST)

It's not for clones per se - I wouldn't link Captain Falcon to Ganondorf, for instance - but for literal alternate versions, i.e., Mario/Dr. Mario and Link/Young Link/Toon Link. - Reboot (talk) 00:29, 28 February 2011 (EST)

Uh, I wouldn't consider Toon Link an "alternate version/clone", and as such, a reason why we don't need this. It's not informative, it's heavily subjective, and in the case of the Melee clones, it's already mentioned in their articles. And as mentioned before, it isn't necessary. Omega Tyrant 01:20, 28 February 2011 (EST)

There's also the fact that with every Brawl character and most of Melee's it's not going to be used anyway. Omega Tyrant 01:22, 28 February 2011 (EST)

Although it's mentioned in their articles and is not necessary it would be of great convenience to the wiki, wiki visitors and the smash community to have them listed instead of having to go to separate character articles to find whether they're a clone or not.--Shaun's Wiji Dodo talk 01:34, 28 February 2011 (EST)

It's often mentioned right in the beginning of the articles, and people wouldn't have to go to separate character articles to get this minor piece of information. That doesn't address however, that it is not really informative, very few characters would make use of it (and none in Brawl), and most of all, it is far too subjective. Omega Tyrant 01:47, 28 February 2011 (EST)

Take out the movesets for a minute. I'm not talking about how they PLAY - whether they're a moveset clone or not is entirely incidental (yeah, they tend to be, but if Samus & Zero Suit Samus got separate character slots in a Smash Bros. 4 I would list them for that game as alternate versions rather than alternate forms, as they are in Brawl, despite them in no way being moveset clones of one another). This is about whether they're the same character who has multiple character slots in a game (again, as if Samus/ZSS had separate character slots). And by that measure, Link & Toon Link in Brawl, Link & Young Link in Melee and Mario & Dr. Mario in Melee are definitely alternate versions of one another and should be linked to each other in the infobox. And isn't subjective at all since it's right there in the character name!

And as for "not used in many articles", the shareslot= field is used in only four articles [[[Pokémon Trainer (SSBB)]], Charizard (SSBB), Ivysaur (SSBB) & Squirtle (SSBB)]. This would be used in six [[[Mario (SSBM)]], Dr. Mario (SSBM), Link (SSBM), Young Link (SSBM), Link (SSBB) and Toon Link (SSBB)], and - more importantly - unused fields are hidden, meaning it doesn't really matter how many articles it appears on since it only exists on those six articles. - Reboot (talk) 10:44, 28 February 2011 (EST)

Firstly, Link and Toon Link aren't the "same character" (as both Smash Bros. characters and as Legend of Zelda characters) nor are they "alternate versions", so no they will not be using this infobox slot. For the Pokemon Trainer, relevant information about this is right in the intro, repeated throughout the relevant articles, and even in the picture of the Pokemon Trainer, so I see no need for this there (not to mention how painfully obvious it is). For Mario and Dr. Mario, no they do not need this. The same with Link and Young Link. Saying they're "alternate forms" isn't informative, relevant, nor necessary.

As for linking, all these articles are already linked together, so there's no use linking them again in the same articles.

And what is it supposed to be informing us of? These characters are clones? Why then that falls on to subjectivity and everything else mentioned earlier. Are you saying these characters are "the same character" in their respective universe? Well then that information doesn't belong in the smasher articles as it is not relevant to how the characters are in Smash.

Most importantly, you have not explained how this would be useful/relevant/necessary, and the fact remains it is being only possibly used by a very small minority of characters. While the unused slots don't appear, I considered consistency in the Wiki something we should aim for, and having an unnecessary infobox slot I don't see any use for that will only be used by a very small minority is not something to disrupt consistency with.

And tone it down with your edit summaries. Along with the insulting of other users, the ALL CAPS is obnoxious and unnecessary. Just because users on the Wiki challenge something you're trying to implement is not something to get worked up over. Omega Tyrant 11:34, 28 February 2011 (EST)

Slot sharing is infobox-worthy because it's a piece of important gameplay-based info (e.g. which characters share high scores), and just because it's mentioned in the article doesn't mean it doesn't belong (e.g. tier position is in both the infobox and in the article). But "alternate version" as you're trying to sell it is not infobox-worthy, and here's why - the articles where this template is used are the articles about the characters in a completely Smash Bros.-only context. If Ike were replaced with Roy and the moveset and physics were unchanged, then all we'd have to do in the Ike (SSBB) article would be to change the name and a few other things, with most of it being left intact. In the end it doesn't actually really matter who the character is - it could be a faceless drone or something, since the articles are about their movesets and how they play (in addition to their SSE role and trivia). This would be more relevant in {{Infobox Character General}}, though even then its usefulness would be disputed. Toomai Glittershine The Bold 13:13, 28 February 2011 (EST)

Two questions...

1. For Melee fighters, would it be at all possible to include their PAL Tier List positions and their Brazilian Tier List positions in this Infobox?

1. For the original 64 game and Melee, is it possible to modify some characters' Series symbols to match their original appearances on those games? For the Mario series characters, for instance, the Mushroom was initially slightly flatter and had no spots.

Just curious.

ReiDemon 21:07, 4 October 2011 (EDT)

"Stats"

I'm wondering whether we should add "statistics" to the infoboxes (weight, falling speed, etc) to character articles (I'm putting this proposal here because I can think of no other place). Normally I would do this myself, but I'm wondering whether Toomai or anyone else has ideas for neat-looking tables or other formats. And then there's the matter of how to integrate some issues.

1. Have it in the Infobox. This would have seperate portions of the infobox show different statistics. These statistics would naturally be placed near the tier position box. Advantages: Easy to view, won't disrupt the article, seems natural to put such info there. Disadvantages: Will make the infobox very large.
2. Have it in its own section, paragraph form. This would, rather than have stats be placed in a table, have a section written out that details the statistics of the character. Advantages: would allow qualitative info along with quantitative info. Disadvantages: would take up more space, would take more time to read.
3. Have it in its own section, table form. This is pretty easy to imagine. It would have a table that includes both absolute and relative data on character statistics. Advantages: concise, aesthetic, would allow for some nice looking formats. Disadvantages: Difficult to edit, some kinds of data may need clarification that might be difficult to implement into a table.
4. Do not have statistics mentioned in article. Can't think of any advantages, and lack of info is a clear disadvantage, but I'm leaving this here just because we should have a complete range of options.

Mr. Anontalk 00:38, 19 January 2012 (EST)

I would support the "as a table" idea, since the data is useful, large infoboxes are generally bad, and data shouldn't be in paragraph form. However, we lack a lot of SSB64 data, and some of the data we have doesn't have a known meaning either. It can be done, but the SSB64 articles will be thinner for it. Toomai Glittershine The Yoshi 08:01, 19 January 2012 (EST)

I too would go with the table. It's more sensible to have the data with the rest of the information about the character, than to cram it all in the infobox. And that clarification disadvantage isn't a real disadvantage. Omega Tyrant 08:21, 19 January 2012 (EST)

I also support the table form, but I had to include possible disadvantages to make the choices balanced. Mr. Anontalk 13:37, 19 January 2012 (EST)