Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Highlander/Archive 1

HL template and WP Television

I have tagged pretty much every article I could grab with my stubby fingers. I don't think I missed much, but it's still possible.

Other projects about series have listed Wikipedia:WikiProject_Television as their parent project so I had a look there. They suggest projects like us become task forces of WP Television, as explained here. What do you think ?Rosenknospe 15:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the task force suggestion applies to small shows such as Boy Meets World or The View, and considering Highlander is not confined to only the world of television I believe this WikiProject is appropriate. Stormin' Foreman 16:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Highlander character template

The template as it currently stands is too crufty, full of In-Universe stuff that likely doesn't need to be there - stuff that is better explained at length in the article itself. I've marked in bold those categories that I think should remain.

Highlander character

image =

image_size = 300px

'highlander' = Highlander (franchise) - crufty. they wouldn't be part of the project if they weren't

name =

alias =

race =

gender =

hair =

eyes =

age =

born =

immortalized =

affiliation =

previous_affiliations =

status =

killed_by =

teacher =

teacher_of =

weapons =

watchers =

portrayed =

first =

movies =

seasons =

- Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you on the whole. Beside what you said, the infobox appears far too big on articles. I don't think the "teacher" and "teacher of" field should stay, either. But I feel the need for a "death/deathdate/time of death/whatever" field, and I suggest the "immortalized" field be renamed "first death" as it is called so. Thoughts ? Rosenknospe 14:11, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, although I think the "status" and "watchers" should be included Stormin' Foreman 18:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Why not replace "status" with "deathdate" then ? "Status" only states that someone is "alive" or "deceased" while "deathdate" would give the year, a more accurate information. And if there is no deathdate-- well, then we know they are not dead ;D I don't think we should keep "watchers" though, because except Joe, they're mostly faceless names, so I feel it's too trivial information. No ? Rosenknospe 14:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I think if we do that, we run the risk of crufty OR. Take a look at the Harry Potter character pages from a month ago and look at the same pages' infoboxes now (actually, it's a pain in the ass to do that, so I'll make the point). Most people do not know how to say/admit/realize that they don't know something. Given the medium of the internet and the genuine level desire to add stuff, leaving a box open when we cannot be sure of its value opens the door to cruft. It opens it, spikes the door open and breaks the lock and hinges so it cannot be closed again without caterwauling.

We don't know who everyone's watcher is. We don't know what everyone's status or deathdate/demise is. Because we don't - as all the characters are different, that sort of info can be included in the actual article. The infobox is for constant, consistent info that every subject of the wikiproject will possess, like their First Quickening (coming back from death as an Immortal) or their name.

On a side note, I wonder if there is a category/article that collects all the Highlander in-universe terms like Quickening, Gathering and the Rules of the Game. These might be worth merging separate articles fro efficiency's sake. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, we do know everyone's watchers and status. It's on the Watcher CD/episodes Watcher Chronicles. My point is, we should not include watchers in the infobox because, you're right, it's too crufty, I think so, too. By "deathdate" I don't mean the guy died on March 31, 1992 or something, just 1992. If the "deathdate" field is empty because, say, Amanda is still alive, then it won't appear on the article page at all and shouldn't attract cruft.

The article that collects all those in-universe terms is, I think, Immortal (Highlander). I'm currently pushing it to GA status. I don't think it should be split up at all, it looks fine (for me, anyway ;). I'm actually considering merging Quickening (Highlander) and Watcher (Highlander) with it in a far future. I haven't suggested it yet because I'm not finished with this particular article and can't see yet if it's a good idea. But I still think it's worth considering. Rosenknospe 15:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Personally I think that the information is rather nice and helpful, so I actually like it as it is. Can you give an example of what is currently being displayed and what you'd prefer it to look like? -- UKPhoenix79 07:54, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

These are the template categories I think we should be using, and do away with the non-encyclopedic and crufty:

Highlander character

image =

image_size = 300px

highlander = Highlander (franchise) - crufty. they wouldn't be part of the project if they weren't

name =

alias =

race = - this sort of thing is non-encyclopedic, and easily identified by an image (and cannot be used in absence of one)

gender = as above

hair = as above

eyes = as above

age =

Found = - in every instance, Immortals are all Foundlings, not born

immortal =

affiliation = - this is unencyclopedic and cruft, as there are certainly affiliations exisiting outside the scope of the show/film

previous_affiliations= as above

status = this should be covered within the article

killed_by =this should be covered within the article, as well

teacher =

teacher_of =

weapons =cruft. These folk use whatever is handy

watchers = I am torn on this one, as it wasn't something that came into play until the series, three movies later

portrayed =

first =

movies =

seasons =

These crufty things need to go the way of the dinosaur, and right quick, before the number of Highlander characters becomes unwieldy. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you can remove the "watcher" field as well. The only significant Watcher is Joe and he will be mentioned in the Duncan MacLeod article, the others are mainly faceless names and so I feel it's crufty as well. About the "age" field : it changes every year, do you think it's manageable ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosenknospe (talk • contribs) 07:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I forgot to sign earlier. The "found" field doesn't show on the articles, maybe you can get a bot to correct them ? Come to think of it, should we name that field "found" at all ? Even foundlings are born from someone, after all. Rosenknospe 07:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Such would be the case with normal folk, but where Immortals come from is deliberately left vague in the series. Born is therefore inaccurate, whereas 'found' crystallizes the difference.

As for changing them, I would love to. However, my operating system can't use the bots, so i cannot automate it. If you can, or know someone who can, that would be awesome. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, I've tried to adjust the template, and it shows up correctly in the edit screen, but the inforbox categories that appear in the normal page appear unaffected. I am not sure why...- Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if I'm being picky about that, but I still feel bothered by "found". You're right, we don't know where Immortals come from, but still "born" is the word used in the series. I mean, Duncan says he was born in the Highlands. The Watchers use that word in the chronicles too. "Born" and "found" have different meanings. I understand to be born is to come into existence, while to be found is to be picked up by someone. Immortals all come into existence, I mean there has been a time before, say, Amanda existed, but to be found is a matter of chance. To be born is a biological experience, while to be found is a social one, and I think that field is about biology. My two cents ;D Rosenknospe 08:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

No, there's no problem with still talking about it. Consider the fact that we are talking about people who can only be killed if you cut off their head. I mean, we've seen some pretty horrific ways in which they take a dirt nap. We have to keep in mind that the Highlander logic isn't completely solid. A great deal of it appears to be magical in nature - no one pulls a sword out of a short jacket unless it's in a very uncomfortable sheath (ouch!). Since logic isn't a part of it, applying logic to it isn't appropriate. Connor and Duncan were foundlings, and anytime the subject is brought up, the word birth is used vaguely - but the words and descriptions of being found are continuous and unchanging. Where do baby immortals come from? I don't know. Maybe they come from an immortal stork. In the absence of confirmation, we have to go fromt he info given us. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I've fixed the template. You won't believe it, but there was a "=" not in line with the others, and that's what jammed the whole thing ! Also, I've fixed the syntax display. The syntax is actually hidden at Template:Highlander_character/Syntax so I've modified it and now it's showing ;D Rosenknospe 11:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Where the hell was it? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

It's there. Scroll to the bottom of the box and check the 4th "=". Now it toes the line, hee hee :D Rosenknospe 15:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Could you point me to some sources for the words and descriptions of being found ? Especially for Connor, because I said in Immortal (Highlander) that he's never said to be a foundling, so if I messed up, I need a source. I must admit I find it hard to ignore the "I/He was born four hundred years ago in the Highlands of Scotland" that begin each episode, or the Watcher chronicle of every Immortal beginning with "Born". I mean, if it's their words, why don't we use them ? On the other hand, to be born and to be found don't exclude each other, so I guess my line of thinking it that they are born first and then found, while yours is that we don't know what happens first, and then they're found. Am I right ? Rosenknospe 15:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)