Template talk:Lore People Summary

Gender

I may be late to the table, but why do we need to mention gender in the summary? It has no bearing on a lore article, and as with the issue of mentioning gender in the first line it should just be done away with imo. Silence is Golden^{Break the Silence} 01:41, 2 May 2013 (GMT)

I think Gender is important, if you disregard gender you can pretty much by the same standard disregard the rest.--Ashendant (talk) 01:43, 2 May 2013 (GMT)

My idea was that it would be in the table, rather than in the text. Jeancey (talk) 01:45, 2 May 2013 (GMT)

Still doesn't explain why it should be there at all. The same reason the mention in the text was deemed unwarranted still applies, gender can be determined by the use of pronouns in the rest of the text. The reason its good for game summaries are gender specific perks like the speech one in Skyrim. There really is no need to have it in a lore summary. Silence is Golden^{Break the Silence} 01:49, 2 May 2013 (GMT)

If it helps, Wikipedia doesn't use a gender marker in their summaries. Also, the game-specific ones categorize them, so I'd support its inclusion if we want to cat these people. Otherwise, it doesn't matter either way; pronouns get it well enough. Vely^►t►e 01:55, 2 May 2013 (GMT)

Readers will look at the template and see some basic information, that's the normal of purpose of these templates, a reader shouldn't have to decipher a gender just because it's in the pronouns of the text. Also Gender is a very specific and simple information that can be said in one word, much like race. There is no reason to not have them in these kinds of templates.--Ashendant (talk) 02:01, 2 May 2013 (GMT)

It might be simple information, but it's denigrating to categorize or identify people by gender. That is why wikipedia doesn't do it, and it is also why it should be avoided like the plague in our Lore space, the closest thing to wikipedia we have. It serves a purpose in game spaces due to perks and such, but there is no reason to have it in Lore. Silence is Golden^{Break the Silence} 02:04, 2 May 2013 (GMT)

Wikipedia also doesn't show races(or ethnicities). You can't forget that this is ultimately a Fantasy wiki and some context used in the average wiki can't be used here. Hence why we need both a gender and race entries to help give these attributes to characters without going trough needless complexity, something that the reader can be presented trough single word in a template rather than having the reader check the body of the text. You don't losing anything for having it in a template. Also I don't see how it is denigrating, if it was real people, maybe?--Ashendant (talk) 02:14, 2 May 2013 (GMT)

Also don't forget that Gender is not as obvious in Fantasy than in the real world so there's that too.--Ashendant (talk) 02:16, 2 May 2013 (GMT)

(←) You can't tell race from pronouns, and with people IRL who are documented on Wikipedia, there's not always a race due to mixing, which doesn't exist in TES except for a few cases. You can tell gender from pronouns. Usually you can also figure out gender from the name, but not always.

As for gender being obvious, that's dubious--pixels can show incorrectly, but IRL androgyny is a thing too. Vely^►t►e 02:24, 2 May 2013 (GMT)

There are no real benefits from having it "summarized", most of the reasons for its removal from the text can be seen here (just to the first edit break), and unless there are some additional benefits that have not yet been mentioned, it should be removed for those same reasons. Silence is Golden^{Break the Silence} 02:28, 2 May 2013 (GMT)

Sorry, should I stop adding summaries until this is sorted out, or can it just be tweaked later to omit displaying the gender parameter? Minor Edits^{Threats•Evidence} 02:38, 2 May 2013 (GMT)

If there's enough edits, a bot can remove the gender parameter. Do whatever for now, I say. Vely^►t►e 02:39, 2 May 2013 (GMT)

I already stated the benefits of having it summarized: convenience for the reader without having to figure out the actual text (which is purpose of these templates), clarification in a fantasy setting and its simple enough that it requires little work. It's also already in the template and removing it would be purposeless.(that link you posted was about introductory phrases, not templates)

Also on wikipedia, while the normal people articles don't have gender in the templates, those for characters do have gender. As can be seen here in the Infobox for Characters.[1]

At this points we reached an impasse, and there is little way this discussion can develop besides a YES-NO argument. We need either a vote or a answer from an admin.--Ashendant (talk) 14:49, 2 May 2013 (GMT)

We never reach an impasse :) Also, here on UESP, admins don't really rule on things like this. Jeancey (talk) 15:06, 2 May 2013 (GMT)

As mentioned, if we are going to the trouble of adding infoboxes then why not add as many relevant fields as possible - including a gender field. One of the reasons for having these templates/infoboxes is so a user can get the basic facts at a glance. I don't see how its denigrating to categorize or identify people by gender - for one we do it already. Ashendant made a good point - its a fantasy wiki - these are not real people. Who could ever get offended by this? --Jimeee (talk) 15:16, 2 May 2013 (GMT)

Oh Okay. Anyway I made my point. You can't say there aren't benefits when I stated some benefits. You can't say that's how the other wiki does it, because it's not.

On the other wiki, I want to note that the gender is mostly used in science fiction/fantasy when there are less-human races(which is applicable here), and when there isn't a picture and/or the name is ambiguous(Elder Scrolls seem to be all about ambiguous names), I would also argue that it should be applied when the picture is ambiguous(which seems to be the case for cartoons).--Ashendant (talk) 15:18, 2 May 2013 (GMT)

As I said already, there are valid reasons for classifying by gender in gamespaces, the same reasons for which do not apply in lore space. I had a quick look at some wikipedia game NPC articles (mainly FFVII ones), and while they are categorized by male and female, they do not show that in the either the introduction or the summary box. The one article where I did see it mentioned was where a female character was being highlighted in a game with mainly male characters (and it wasn't the introduction to the character either). If there is still disagreement to removing it from display (if we are not categorizing them, which I don't see a need for), or removing it entirely if there is to be no categorization, then this discussion should be moved to the community portal to get wider consensus. Silence is Golden^{Break the Silence} 17:24, 2 May 2013 (GMT)

There are different reason for applying it in the lore space, Reasons which I said and Jimeee pointed it out better. If you are still saying there are no valid reasons then you are just ignoring our side of the argument(which is kinda rude).

You should've also read what I said about wiki usage of the gender in the infobox. Genders are used for fantasy/science fiction series where the names are usually ambiguous or there are no pictures, which is normally the case with the Elder Scrolls.

I don't really care for categories in this case, what I'm seeking here is having as much relevant information displayed in the template, and, like I said before, if you can disregard Gender as valid you can disregard most other information as valid too.

And we ended with a YES-NO argument... Yes it should probably be moved then, I guess, for something that shouldn't really be a issue.--Ashendant (talk) 17:42, 2 May 2013 (GMT)

(←) I think omitting gender would make the table look cleaner, but I also don't see how it's hurting anything at all to leave it there. It's too trivial to really continue arguing about it, however, so if you lot are going to continue working toward a consensus, please remember to keep a civil tone moving forward. ⇠eshe^talk 18:45, 2 May 2013 (GMT)

I think we could look back into adding gender to the categories. Not by race (no Lore-People-Altmer-Male) just (Lore-People-Male), I think it could be helpful for those wanting to find a full list of female characters in the franchise (which could be very helpful to efforts such as the Dearly Have I Bought It women's day anthology) as it would just make them easier to find The Rim of the Sky (talk) 23:32, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Caption suggestion?

Perhaps make the caption font small text/font-size: 11px; - like we have in thumb captions? Looks nicer and adds some consistency. --Jimeee (talk) 15:22, 2 May 2013 (GMT)

Yes Done. Jeancey (talk) 15:30, 2 May 2013 (GMT)

Birth?

Can we have the table automatically hide the "Birth" section if it's left blank? Looks a bit silly on the page of an immortal being. —Legoless (talk) 16:10, 6 August 2013 (GMT)

Hmmm, I need to talk to RH or Jak about how exactly to implement the way that I am thinking of doing it (which would be to put none as the birth for immortal beings, which would remove that section entirely). The other way would be to make it so that if it isn't specified, it doesn't appear, but that would mean changing a large number of pages of mortals to indicate that we simply don't know the date of birth, which is what the default Unknown was supposed to do. We could just change all those to be Unknown by hand, but the first way seems to be easier (if complicated). I'll work on it for a little while when I have more focus, and I'll ask RH or Jak for some help in the meantime. Jeancey (talk) 19:12, 6 August 2013 (GMT)

Do we really want to remove it? Maybe dragons weren't "born" as we commonly use that word, but there was definetly a point where they started to be. -- SarthesArai ^Talk 19:25, 6 August 2013 (GMT)

It's not only for dragons. Even for normal people pages where the date of birth isn't known (i.e. most of them), having the section there seems unnecessary. —Legoless (talk) 19:33, 6 August 2013 (GMT)

Ok, think I've stopped it from automatically showing. —Legoless (talk) 15:57, 30 May 2014 (GMT)

Flexible Image Description

The current imgdesc parameter is very inflexible, forcing the page name to come first. Can we toggle this off, or better yet outright replace it and have a bot go through and fix things? —Legoless (talk) 18:18, 25 August 2014 (GMT)

Which situations were you thinking that the name of the person wouldn't go first? Just curious. I designed it this way so that there was consistency with the image descriptions. I couldn't think of a situation where the people summary would be used and the name wouldn't come fist. Jeancey (talk) 19:15, 25 August 2014 (GMT)

Here, where it causes a space in "Selene's". —Legoless (talk) 19:45, 25 August 2014 (GMT)

Well, I can fix that easily, just create an exception when an apostrophe is used, and remove the space. I'm just wondering if there is ever any significant deviation from the name being first that would warrant a change and the botwork to add the name and title to every description. I personally don't think we need to do that, but if there is a good reason, I'd be willing to change my mind. Jeancey (talk) 20:01, 25 August 2014 (GMT)

The botwork was easily done. If I hadn't decided to redesign the whole bulk replacement process the way I should've done it years ago, it would've taken all of about 10 minutes. That said, another option is to skip the botwork and just add another parameter to the template, like fullimgdesc, then change the existing template code to {{{fullimgdesc|{{{title|}}} {{{name}}} {{{imgdesc|}}}}}}. That way, the default is retained without having to alter all the existing templates, but it can be overridden when really needed. – Robin Hood  ^(talk) 20:14, 25 August 2014 (GMT)

Either option is fine for me. —Legoless (talk) 20:25, 25 August 2014 (GMT)

Restore Main Category

I recently proposed adding in the Lore-People-[Races] categories (ie Category:Lore-People-Altmer) as a means to avoid the very subjective "Notable People" sections that could be added to Race articles and to categorize people more easily, however I didn't intend for this to replace putting Category:Lore-People entirely outside of those of unknown race. I think it should be added back to all Lore people because while the race categories are still under Lore-People it will take longer to find specific ones from that category. Also redirects are a whole issue and shouldn't be removed from the main category to fit into how it currently is, and the race category should be supplementary, not a replacement, its perfectly reasonable to have 3 categories instead of 2 (see how Category:Online-NPCs is always gonna be put onto the same pages as Category:Online-Altmer despite one being a broader version of the other). The Rim of the Sky (talk) 23:29, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree with keeping people pages in both the main category as well as the race subcategory. There is no harm in doing this and it would be consistent with the game namespaces. --Oriwa ^Talk 23:55, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

This begs the question of if Unknown people should have a Category:Lore-People-Unknown or not. -Dcsg (talk) 00:50, 7 March 2021 (UTC)