Template talk:HP character

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Template parameters

{{ HP character 
 | fgcolor    = 
 | name       = 
 | gender     = 
 | hair       = 
 | eyes       = 
 | residence  = 
 | house      = 
 | school     = 
 | blood      = 
 | species    = 
 | owner      = 
 | actor  = 
 | voice      = 
 | appearance = 
}}

The only required parameter is the name. Any others which are unknown or inapplicable should be left blank.

• name: The name of a character.
• image: Image link format:
  [[Image:Image-Name|Widthpx|Alternate-Text]] <br/> Caption.
  The Width should be no more than 300px.
  The Alternate Text should identify the person(s) in the image, and—very briefly—anything noteworthy about the scene.
  The Caption is optional.

• bgcolor: see here
• fgcolor: see here

• gender: The gender of a character.
• hair: The hair colour of a character.
• eyes: The eye colour of a character.
• residence: The name of the established home of an adult character.

• house: The Hogwarts house a character is a member of.
• school: The name of the school a character attends or attended. If a Hogwarts house is specified, it's not necessary to also specify the school.
• blood: The blood purity of human and part-human characters.

• species: The species of non-human characters.
• owner: The owner of a pet animal.
• powers: Any special power of an animal.

• allegiance: The organizations or leaders with which a character is aligned. No more than two, and organizations precede individuals.

• portrayer: The actor who portrays a character on-screen in the film series.
• voice: The actor who voices a CGI character in the film series.

• appearance: The book in which the character first appears. Format with a line break after "Harry Potter and"; e.g. ''[[Harry Potter and the Philospher's Stone|Harry Potter and <br/> the Philospher's Stone]]''.

I created a duplicate template (Template:HP Characters) to bypass the five-limit on template invocations on one page. ugen64 23:43, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)

It is no longer needed and is now up for deletion. 66.190.218.206 06:13, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Status?

I think a "Status" field -- "Living," "Deceased," "Unknown" -- would be useful.

I agree, but it might cause problems with having to move the 'spoiler' tag to the top of the page on pages like Dumbledore. In most cases if they dont have a date of death in the first line of the article, they are alive. --drak2

Hi, I don't mind the status field, provided all the character boxes are updated with a status prior to the field being added. Otherwise, all the characters look like there is some unfinished work. To keep the look of the wikiproject in a reasonnable shape, things have to be done in order. I have removed the status for now because all the characters were showing a ststus of: "{{{status}}}". Also all the spoiler warnings need to be at the right place when the status is added. Lag 20:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recent Edits

The relatives height and weight of characters mentioned in the books aren't exact enough for a table. You could only use terms like "small" or "tall" and these are all relative.

Changing "affliation" to "loyalty" would mean reformatting all the tables. It was "affliation" originally but some people (i.e. Aris Katsaris) found it confusing.

[edit] Parentage, Allegiance

I opted to change the field 'Blood Purity' to 'Parentage' since the latter is a word used by Rowling herself in reference to such distinctions as pure-blood, half-blood and Muggle-born.

From http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/2001/1201-bbc-hpandme.htm ("Harry Potter and Me" BBC Special):

JKR: ... this is the name of everyone in Harry's year [holds up piece of paper] and all these little symbols mean what house they're in, how magical they are, what their parentage is, because I needed this later for the Death Eaters and so on, and the various allegiances that will be set up within the school.

While I'm at it, notice that in the same interview, Rowling used "allegiance" in reference to the Death Eaters. Hence, I prefer to substitue 'Allegiance' for 'Loyalty' in the template.

--Mercury McKinnon 19 May 2005

I think both Allegiance and Loyalty work Allegiance because that the word JK Rowling Uses but Loyalty because thats what the Characters use especialy Harry. Shimonnyman 18:14, 5 September 2005

[edit] Affiliation/Loyalty & "Hogwarts" House

I strongly oppose the use of the term Affiliation rather than Loyalty. I agree Allegiance might be a good idea. I have changed it back and see no reason to use 'affiliation' unless anyone has anything to say on the subject. If anyone does want to use affiliation I will happily discuss it here.

The same goes for using 'Hogwarts' in the House section of the table. It causes the text in the cell to go onto a second line, and is unnecessary. I think we can for the moment assume that all houses quoted in the tables are Hogwarts houses, as foreign students (from other schools) can use the foreign HP character template.

--Drak2 22:17, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sex/Gender

Should not "sex" be used instead of "gender" as it is the more grammatically correct term when referring to organisms? --Zippanova 19:22, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Can you explain the difference?

I know you didnt ask me but i was currious and looked it up in a dictionary: sex is biological and gender is social or cultural. According to this rule, one would say The effectiveness of the medication appears to depend on the sex (not gender) of the patient, but In peasant societies, gender (not sex) roles are likely to be more clearly defined. -- Shimonnyman 10:12, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

This is irrelevant to the above postings, but is it really necessary to list a character's gender (or sex)? asyndeton 23:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] year of birth

Should there be a part of the template added that covers years of birth or aproxamate of unknown? I think that could be good or maybe like a part that covers life span birth to death or maybe birth and death part and for non dead put N/A or unknown or alive Shimonnyman 11:20, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I think so. I think there should be "Last Appearance" "Born" and "Died" added to the template. The reason I think there should be Last Appaearance as wesll as Died is cause most of them don't correspond. - RedHotHeat 17:51, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] width

The template is too wide for my tastes, much wider than any other sidebar-type template that I'm familiar with. I changed it and was asked to discuss first when it was reverted. Sorry for not doing that first. Here I am to discuss! Tedernst 16:07, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree. 25 ems! It only leaves room for a narrow column of text beside it. I suggest cutting it to 20 ems. Other than the book titles, what would be affected? And they can be shortened, since they all begin "Harry Potter and ...".

—wwoods 04:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Again, why is this template so wide? There's no reason that I can see. —wwoods 06:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Parentage

I am going to remove the link on parentage because all that comes out from that is [[Blood Purity (Harry Potter)|Pure-blood]]

[edit] Changed Loyalty to Allegiance

I changed the text from Loyalty to Allegiance per this discussion, and I also made it so you can call the template using either "loyalty=x" or "allegiance=x". --Deathphoenix ʕ 03:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Italics for appearance

Someone added italic markings for the appearance section, so that when one inserts the infobox one need not use the quotation marks. However, that makes all the current infoboxes that have used the italics markings appear with one ' and a bold display. I think the edit should be reverted, unless somebody would like to go and change everything that's been made bold. --Fbv65edel ^{(discuss | contribs)} 22:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I got rid of it. Given two different routes, I take the easiest route. ;-) --Deathphoenix ʕ 12:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree, either revert or change every page where the template is used. Lgriot 12:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unknown characteristics

I've changed the template to not display characteristics which are "Unknown" or inapplicable. I think I've got the syntax right. I added "School", so the the Foreign characters can use the same template. —wwoods 19:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template revision

I've added all the characteristics from the various HP character templates, with descriptions at the top of this talk page. —wwoods 22:23, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Loyalty, allegiance, affiliation

I think "affiliation" is the best term for this part of the template. For example, we do not know if Snape is loyal/pays allegiance to the Order or Death Eaters/Voldemort. However, we do know he has been affiliated with both groups. This precision in language is the difference between speculation and fact, in my opinion. It also resolves the problem that someone could be a part of two groups that may appear as being philosophical polar opposites. 67.165.72.229 00:33, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Powers

I see that the Powers field is reserved for animals. How about also using it for stuff like Metamorphmagus, parselmouth, etc, as those are not learned abilities but stuff they are born with...

[edit] Fields for relatives?

How about fields for parents, siblings, spouse, and/or children? --musicpvm 08:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed changes

I'd like to quote from WP:WAF#Infoboxes and succession boxes. You should read that whole section before reading this; however, here's the most important part:

For entities within fiction, useful infobox data might include the creators or actors, first appearance, an image, and in-universe information essential to understanding the entity's context in the overall fiction. What qualifies as essential varies based on the nature of the work. Where facts change at different points in a story or series, there may be no appropriate in-universe information at all to add. By contrast, an infobox on a character in a fantasy work with multiple warring factions may warrant data such as allegiance. As with all infoboxes, trivial details should be avoided.

I feel that, as such, we need to cut down on some of the parameters in this infobox. Below is a list of the parameters we currently have; those with strikes through them I propose we eliminate:

• name
• image
• bgcolor — this and fgcolor should be kept, but there are constant wars over the colors on the individual character pages, usually based on the house the character was in, or just any old colors that the editor likes. I know we have Wikipedia:WikiProject Harry Potter/Templates#Colours, but we should revise that (yet again) so that everyone can be happy.
• fgcolor
• birth — too in-universe.
• gender
• hair — trivial.
• eyes — trivial.
• residence — trivial.
• house =
• school — come on, there are basically only three schools and most everybody went to Hogwarts. For the three that didn't it can be mentioned in the article.
• blood — I'm wary about keeping this because it is typically the source of much speculation ("Well, her father was magical, but we don't know about her grandfather, so maybe she's half-blood?"), so I would say we should limit this to "Muggle-born," "Half-blood," "Pureblood", "Unknown" and the other varieties (like Half-giant for Hagrid, etc.). But anything with "Unknown, but probably pureblood," should be cut down to "Unknown."
• species — as long as it's for non-humans only.
• owner
• powers — this could go on forever.
• wand — mildly important information, but too long for an infobox. This should of course be highlighted in the article.
• patronus — too trivial for an infobox.
• animagus — too trivial for an infobox
• allegiance — keep of course, but like "blood," we need to cut down on the speculation that ensues in this parameter.
• portrayer
• voice
• appearance — can we simplify this parameter by having options 1 – 7, so that you don't have to type out the whole name of the book? I know that there are too some characters who are only mentioned in earlier books and formally introduced in later ones, so how about then a separate parameter (like "mentioned," if necessary) with the same 1 – 7 options? It's tiring to have to fix all the formatting issues here.

Anyway, these are just parameter changes — there need to be some formatting changes to the infobox too, but it's a start. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 15:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I propose we add creator= J.K.Rowling in every info box —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lizzie Harrison (talk • contribs)

Well, considering that every infobox would carry that, it would be redundant. Rowling should be in the lead section anyway; it would be unnecessary to add to the infobox. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 22:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The length of the list of parameters owes a lot to the merging of several separate templates, HP character, HP foreign character, HP animal, etc. Almost all the parameters are optional, meaning if they aren't known or aren't important they can be left blank, in which case they won't show in the infobox.

Putting "Creator" inside the infobox would give the impressions that some characters were created by someone other than JKR. Maybe the box's header could include her name somehow... "J.K. Rowling's Potter-verse"? That doesn't sound right, but maybe there's some version.

• Birth date is useful for distinguishing students from teachers/parents from ancients. Working out the ages as of the beginning of HPatPS might be equivalent, but that has its own problems.
• Hair and eye color are in some cases distinctive or important.
• A few characters have articled residences; having the line provides a link.
• The code for schools exists; what's the harm in using it?
• Owner is for animals; as it's turned out, most of them are sections on other articles, but...
• Wand, patronus, animagus... eh.
• Appearance. 'Simplifying' the code to handle the variations of mention vs. on-stage, and book vs. movie... Oi.

Happily, the books are done, and only two more movies to go, so things should be a lot more stable in the future.

—wwoods 06:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying that things like hair and eye color and residence aren't important, I'm saying they're not vital for the infobox. They should of course be incorporated into the article, but they are, IMO, too trivial for the infobox. The guideline I linked to explains how you don't need to summarize the article (character) in the infobox, just highlight extremely important details. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 17:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the original proposed changes, it's a good idea to keep the infobox simple. Also, in light of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Harry Potter#Character colors, shall we remove the bg/fgcolor too? PeaceNT 15:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the bg and fg color need to be removed (so we don't have to continually review the issue)

• Allegiance needs to go as well - I've seen at least three different mini edit-wars pop over allegiances, and they are all about interpretation. As they also then to spoil it for people new to the series (esp the infobox about Snape), it shopuld be removed as well.=
• I think that hair color, eye color and maybe even race (or Species) might be good to include, as they are typical immediate identifiers for the character. As this can be confused with book vs film interpretations, this might be problematic. I don't think it trivial, though.
• School is trivial
• Sexual preference should be added. LOL - just kidding. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:31, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I made the changes. The problem with hair and eye color is, as you say, book/movie differences (like for the Dursleys). It should of course be mentioned in the article, as should all the other parameters which I removed, but it's not necessary for the infobox: these are basic, essential details. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 22:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

It might be nice to keep eye colour as Harry's eyes are exceptionally important to the whole motivation behind Snape's actions. As for book/movie differences we should base everything on the book descriptions, they are a higher level of canon than the movies. Aula^TPN 23:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Is first appearance really necessary? I don't think it adds much to the articles and in cases like Sirius Black, by adding when he was first mentioned, the infobox is cluttered. asyndeton 23:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Er, "portrayer"? Why noit stick with the asexual term, 'actor', pls

To respond to the last three comments, in order:

• The problem with keeping eye color in the infobox is that then every other character also has eye color in the infobox, and it's not vital for the rest of them. Sure, Harry's eyes are constantly mentioned in the series. So that fact should be mentioned in the article. However, I really don't feel that it's something you need to know right off the bat in the infobox.
• I think first appearance is helpful; it also seems to be a standard among fictional infoboxes (not that that's a reason to keep it -- but it seems widespread, so somebody must've liked it). I think we should trim all instances of "first mention" and "seen in a photo" or something, and just stick with "first appearance." It's helpful for somebody who wants to know when they first come in, for example, Kingsley Shacklebolt. You hear so much of him in later books that you might wonder if he made a fleeting appearance in book 1 or something; no, you can see, he came into play in book 5.
• I don't follow. Of the two, actor has some association with a gender, whereas portrayer does not. However, the infobox appears with the word "actor" even though the parameter name is "portrayer." --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 02:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Birth should be up there. Though it would be better if the Chronology of the Harry Potter stories article was divided in more than "Events", "Births" and "Deaths". To at least decades. So you link [[Chronology of the Harry Potter stories#1970|13 May, 1973]] or something. CHANDLERtalk 03:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

But birth is a very in-universe thing, which should really be avoided in fictional infoboxes, per WP:WAF. If you wanted an out-of-universe birth date, it would be 1990 for most characters, the year that they were conceived by Rowling. Once again, this information of course belongs in the article itself, but not in the infobox. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 03:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Not sure how it works in the UK, but pretty much everywhere else inthe English-speaking world, the word 'actor' is gender neutral. It's one of the chief reasons you don't see the term 'actress' applied to a female actor since 1970. Protrayer is awkward and jarring. It should be addressed.

As well, I agree with Fbv - the birth dates should be avoided at all costs, as the books do not take place in any sort of time period - the wizarding world seems quite independent of the fads and trends that the 20th centure was replete with. I say we avoid them, and am tempted to recommend that we purge any mentions of specific years as distracting and relative OR. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

It should be actor, not portrayer, especially if the word portrayer is only a parameter. It is very non-obvious. Birth date should be in. It doesn't matter how in-universe it is, the timing of events and which generation someone belongs to is very important to the plot. I can't see how it would matter in lord of the rings, but that is not this.Sandpiper 16:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

If somebody's willing to go through all the infoboxes and change "portrayer" to "actor," it's fine by me. The infobox still reads the word "actor" when transcluded, despite the fact that the parameter name is "portrayer" -- nobody who's just reading the article will see portrayer.

Sandpiper, you just wrote "it doesn't matter how in-universe it is." There's your answer. It's in-universe. It is perfectly okay -- in fact, it would be wrong not to -- to include the character's birth date/year within the article itself. However, you run into certain problems by including it in a small field like the infobox's, for example when a character's year is narrowed down between two years, or only their birth year is known. By reading the article one should understand what generation the character comes from, and that's the whole point. The infobox is not a summary of the article in quick-read format. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 17:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Brainwave

There's been a good discussion here about the proposed changes to the template but, as we're seeing all over the HP character articles, very few people seem to check the template page or the talk page so these changes are a complete blindside to them. I have a proposal: why not make a subpage such as Template talk:HP character/Announce where we can place announcements related to upcoming changes and proposed changes to the template? We could then (in/trans)clude this onto the talk pages of the articles which use the template. All it needs to be is a bulleted list with quick summaries of two or three things with links back to here - it could sit at the top of the talk pages like the project infoboxes. The other alternative could be to expand the Wikiproject infobox so that it's included on all the HP talk pages. Thought I would canvas for comments before I went ahead and knocked together a prototype. Aula^TPN 07:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Very good idea, here here! CHANDLERtalk 08:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok I couldn't resist, I've created an initial annouce list at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Harry Potter/Announce and added it to the WPHP template. Comments? Aula^TPN 09:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of parameters

I must say that I highly disagree with the removal of certain parameters such as birth/death, wand, patronus

I liked having an at-a-glance info for all the characters, and the removal of this info makes things very frustrating. 69.181.82.17 20:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sexual preference

I suggest that this be added as a parameter since Rowling has retconned this as a plot point for at least one character. Soon we may hear that McGonagal is a lesbian and Trelawney is a closet horse mongler. KurdzenWeys 20:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely not. It's completely irrelevant to the works as written, adding it would be nothing short of pandering to sensationalism. Aula^TPN 21:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

This suggestion is just the latest event in this guy's vandalism. Ignore him. asyndeton 21:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Pandering to sensationalism? The author made the admission. She indicated it was an important aspect of the character; that it drove the character's motivations through the entire series. Are you saying that JK Rowling is pandering for sensation? And yes, I am serious about this suggestion. Removal of information about a character's sexual preference is homophobic. KurdzenWeys 06:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Who removed it from the article? They only removed your attempts to blow it out of proportion. His sexual orientation is already mentioned in the appropriate section. Why should it be mentioned in his infobox when it's not even mentioned in the books? That's absurd. There's already plenty of more relevant information categories that have been removed from the infobox. She never stated it drove his motivations through the entire series, that is just not true. And some people would consider your calling it sexual preference homophobic. V-train 06:48, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of 'blood' field

I have brought this up at the talk page for the HP project here, and have received support. Just thought I'd mention it here as well before removing it. If no one objects, I'll remove it in a couple of days. Cheers, faithless (^speak) 22:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm going ahead with it, then. faithless (^speak) 11:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Allegiance needs to come back

I would suggest/demand the allegiance parameter to be restored. There are two blocs and other warring factions in the series and it is readers' right to know what side does the character takes in the story. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 23:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)