Template talk:Infobox Individual

partner killed by design?
Recently, I saw a field "partner" being used for the cases of intimate relationships that are not marriages (see, for instance, Charlie Smith. It seems that this functionality has disappeared. I'm just wondering if that was a collateral of some other changes or a conscious deletion? Amorkuz ☎  20:26, April 24, 2017 (UTC)
 * Returned to infobox. Thanks for catching it! 02:50: Tue 23 May 2017

Phrasing
Maybe “More behind the scenes” stuff should be changed to “Another behind the scenes moment” to make it more formal. 11:10, August 16, 2017 (UTC)

"First seen in" phrasing?
Right now, there are three variables in this template regarding appearances: One of these things is not like the other! While "first" is an indispensable part of the infobox, phrasing it as "First seen in" really only makes sense for TV and comic stories: nobody is "seen" in a prose or audio. Changing it to "First appearance" would only add three characters (making it the same length as "Main voice actor") and remove this weird ambiguity. Could this be changed here and in other infoboxes with the same variable? – N8  ( ☎ / 👁️ ) 15:58, February 20, 2020 (UTC)
 * "first", which renders in the infobox as "First seen in"
 * "only", which renders in the infobox as "Appearance"
 * "appearances", which renders in the infobox as "Appearances"
 * I concur with N8. Now that it's been pointed out, "First appearance" would be vastly more appropriate. Epsilon the Eternal ☎  01:01, September 9, 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅. Really a straightforward application of T:NPOV. And even within visual media, a character will sometimes "appear" as a disembodied voice, occasionally because they don't have a physical form in the first place; that's still their first appearance, but they're not seen. Scrooge MacDuck ☎  17:21, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Pets
Something of an odd request, but would it be at all possible for a new section of this infobox to be added, for pets? I ask this, as many individuals in the DWU have pets, and I think it would be a useful section. Epsilon the Eternal ☎  01:01, September 9, 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅. Suggestion has been here a while and seems to make sense with no drawbacks. There's certainly value in being able to directly link Fifi from Helen A's infobox and so on. Scrooge MacDuck ☎  17:21, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

New field proposals
Recently, I've been thinking about some new fields for this template, which are for aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, and birth and death dates. These should be useful additions to the template, if anybody could please add them. Epsilon  📯 📂 15:14, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * These sound basically reasonable, but it occurs to me that if we add aunts and uncles, we might as well also add in cousins. After all, in certain accounts, cousins are the only type of family relationships that exist within certain major DWU species outside of special cases. Thoughts, anyone? Scrooge MacDuck ☎  17:21, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Good catch! Yeah, the addition of cousins would be welcome. Epsilon  📯 📂 17:31, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Lending my support for these variables, as I could see immediate uses for them. – n8 (☎) 17:11, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, good! I think we can see our way forward to implementation, I'll see what I can d within the next few days. Possibly sooner. Scrooge MacDuck ☎  18:02, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

New fields for fictional characters
Been looking at sprucing up the pages for some of the fictional characters within the DWU and wondered if some extra fields could be added to this to make it more suitable. We currently have a "made by" field which doesn't exactly sound right for fictional characters - I was thinking perhaps a "created by" field. And then perhaps fields for both "franchise" and "work of origin"? 66 Seconds ☎  23:05, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * This sounds reasonable. Relatedly, I'd also appreciate "type" and "used by" fields, since I've been thinking about how we could better suit The Doctor's TARDIS, who has relatives but also a user. – n8 (☎) 17:11, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me also, same reply a above. However, @Nate, as you'll recall, a lengthy thread concluded that the TARDIS should keep an, even if she might technically be an individual as well as an object; I'm not necessarily in personal agreement with that ruling, but T:BOUND very much applies. The non-T:BOUND-violating way forward, here, would instead be to add relatives and "played by" variables to the Object infobox, not the reverse. Scrooge MacDuck ☎  18:02, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Fields for fictional characters sounds like a genuinely useful addition. I put up my hand in support. 📯 📂 18:55, 15 February 2021 (UTC)