Template talk:Infobox soap character

message: There seems to be a lot of edit warring (to clarify - not including me) on Sam Mitchell (EastEnders) over whether captions should include years or not (e.g. Kim Medcalf as Sam Mitchell (2022)). Over the years, I have editted both UK (and Australian and NZ) and American soaps and it has seemed like some American soap operas editors have been against it. Per the infobox it is NOT prohibited but it also NOT recommended - it is not included. So I thought we should decide here once and for all. 
Personally - I think that years in captions are a good idea as soap opera characters often spend years (and often decades) on soaps, and thus the years can be useful in determining when the picture is taken, especially for screenshots. Soap opera pictures vary: some articles update their pictures every years whilst others don't or use the picture from the characters' initial/biggest stint (such as a lot of the Neighbours characters, which I agree with), but this confusing for readers wondering why a character looks vastly different/older from the wikipedia picture, especially if it is decades old and they assume that the pictures are the most recent. Additionally, soap operas are an outlier in not stating years as most celebrities/real people have the years next to their infobox image (other with other information such "X in July 2019 at X festival", but I do not recommend we do that). 
Please remember to be civil and kind everyone! :) DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 17:42, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Pinging some soap editors -  , , , , ,  and . Feel free to ping anyone else! :) DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 17:45, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

text: Further point - whilst you can see the information of when the screenshots were taken on some infoboxes images, 1.) not all images have this information and 2.) many wikipedia readers will not know how to do this/that that information is there if they click on the image and scroll down to the details) DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 17:51, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I assume the IP's edit summary "Per Template:Infobox soap character we do NOT include years or any other caption but this" refers to the bit in  Template:Infobox_soap_character#Formatting that gives a sample caption. I wrote that particular part in 2014, and I can assure you that the sample was to illustrate the use of less words when possible, not a prohibition to adding additional information that is deemed useful by editors, like a date or other contextual info. I agree with DaniloDaysOfOurLives that dates are helpful and probably preferable, when available, so the documentation should be updated to reflect that their use is OK. Thanks.— TAnthonyTalk 19:30, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I take no issue with the years being included in the infobox. There has been cracking down on lengthy image captions in infoboxes but this has been more of a BLP issue than soaps. I think a note should potentially be added to the template stating that adding a year to the caption is optional? – Meena • 22:37, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the above message by Meena. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 23:40, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see any issue with years included in infobox captions. Soaper1234 - talk 13:55, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

text: No issue with including/keeping years in captions (for images that need them). Some editors really will war over the smallest of things though. 🙄 - JuneGloom07 Talk 22:20, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It's true :( DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 23:10, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Years in caption 

message: Where was it discussed about changing the default image size in the infobox? Surely a change like this should have been discussed, no? livelikemusic (TALK!) 02:20, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I was actually wondering the same thing... , could you please explain your reasoning towards this? :) DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 02:49, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  My reasoning was consistency with similar infoboxes, such as :Template:Infobox character and :Template:Infobox comics character. I have reversed the change, pending further discussion. — Goszei (talk)  04:21, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally believe that the default image size should be 200. That's the size that the majority of soap editors use when implementing an image into infoboxes. I've known there to be other similar sizes used, but 200 is most common in my experience. – Meena • 09:19, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I don't mind either way. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 10:29, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  200px appears too visually small and leaves excess empty space — which visually appears unflattering — especially when the default has been 240px for quite some time. What about a middle ground of 220px? livelikemusic (TALK!) 17:19, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  Honestly, I think it is a case by case basis, so whichever the default size is it should not be too much of an issue as it can be amended for each page. 200 suits some character pages better than 240, and vice versa, depending on various factors (e.g. whether image is a rectangle or square and how zoomed in it is). I think 210 is a good idea. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 17:41, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

text: If the consensus is for a default size of 210px220px, I recommend restoring my edit, as it matches Wikipedia's default thumbnail width of 220px. Thoughts? — Goszei (talk)  05:00, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  Except, judging from test previews, the "default" you had was 200px (which is visually too small). livelikemusic (TALK!) 14:45, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I have copied my edit to Template:Infobox soap character/sandbox; testing it out by previewing articles with the sandbox instead of the live version gives me a width of 220px (when there's no imagesize parameters). Perhaps you have your default thumbnail width set to 200px in Preferences > Appearance? My edit matches whatever the user has that set to. — Goszei (talk)  03:12, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  I didn't even know we could change our default size. I checked and my setting is set at 250px. livelikemusic (TALK!) 01:40, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image size changes? 

message: There is constant edit wars between editors removing/readding "–present" when 2023 is the current year. The argument is currently logic based, as everyone knows that 2023 is the present - and therefore "2023–present" lacks truth as it claims that 2023 is not the present. It would be better if we could get a sentence added to the infobox documentation about this, to have as an actual consensus and linking point to use when reverting editors. Are there any conflicting opinions on this, or likewise, any support? – Meena • 15:43, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I always thought everyone knew  was wrong, and that "" was added once we turned the New Year, especially where marriages are concerned (I've been using  to counteract that). Also, it is worth mentioning several editors continue to WP:IGNORE MOS:DATETOPRES and continue to write  instead of . That seems problematic, as well. Perhaps this should be mentioned, in accordance of the MOS. livelikemusic (TALK!) 14:08, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I prefer the use of the marriage template too, especially in cases of "curent year–present". I would be in favour of adding a sentence about the MOS:DATETOPRES rule alongside "current year–present", as I've enforced it for a while whenever I notice a violation, so to have it in the infobox documentation would be beneficial. – Meena • 17:14, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  2023–present 

message: Would an admin be able to restore the collapsible in-universe section to the template as we reached above consensus a while ago? – Meena • 11:51, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi . I do see consensus above to restore the collapsability. Can you, or another involved editor, put together a change-x-to-y style request that I can implement? I do not want to just revert Gonnym's change, as it included other fixes that I don't believe anyone has challenged. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:38, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: This was an undiscussed change that five of us have objected to. Myself, DaniloDaysOfOurLives, Livelikemusic, Soaper1234 and Raintheone have all expressed concerns above over the collapsible feature being removed.  also agreed with some of the points we made. – Meena • 13:42, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Meena, I totally agree that there is consensus above to remove the collapsibility, and I'm here to enact that change. I am not familiar with this template, and I'm asking what exactly needs to be changed. At a glance, it doesn't seem like reverting this edit is the right move, as it appears to include more than just the collapsibility change. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:48, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: My apologies, I misread "do see" as "don't see" lol. I'm not familiar with the coding as I've never edited it so I implore involved admins  and , who I have tagged previously, to step in and help you out. – Meena • 13:51, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  TAnthony went with a full revert and says they're looking into reimplementing the other changes soon. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:34, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requesting an admin to perform this change