Talk:Danny Torrance

Infobox
I reverted the infobox seen here, which was reminiscent of the infobox that was used when this article was nominated for deletion, seen here. While the Infobox character template exists, most of the fields are in-universe, and this character's notability is not widespread enough to warrant using these fields. What I implemented instead was a variation of the infobox at Featured Article Jason Voorhees that was done by, which I believe is appropriately simple. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 14:48, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I find the recently-revised infobox here to be too in-universe compared to the version that focuses on real-world context (as seen here). Pinging editors from AfD discussion:, , -- what do you think? Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 15:10, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Pinging as well. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 15:37, 9 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I think you did the right thing: an Infobox shouldn't repeat the whole article; it should give the key facts. --Slashme (talk) 07:48, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I've reverted the same kind of infobox again that has too much indiscriminate detail; it can be seen here. As previously mentioned, the current infobox is based on the one from Featured Article Jasoon Voorhees, which I find to be appropriately focused on real-world context, which is necessary in Wikipedia's treatment of fictional topics. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 19:24, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

, it is bizarre of you to add an "in-universe" template when you are trying to perpetuate an in-universe take of the article. As said above, the high-quality infobox is taken from the Featured Article Jason Voorhees by, and concurred with the use of this infobox. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 18:20, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

, There! Nothing in universe! Grapesoda22 (✉) 18:27, 12 May 2017 (UTC)


 * It's missing Doctor Sleep, and the previous infobox had decent grouping of that content. That's why it was reused from a Featured Article. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 18:31, 12 May 2017 (UTC)


 * There are a lot of featured articles for fictional characters that don't feature a list of appearances in the infobox. There are also a lot of featured articles for fictional characters that reference in universe information in the infobox. Example 1, Example 2, Example 3, Example 4. Even the Jason article you keep citing has a limited amount of in-universe info, that same article doesn't have a list of appearances either. Grapesoda22  (✉) 20:00, 12 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Just to point out, the main reason why you don't see a "list of appearances" for Jason is because that list would be like 25 to 30 items long. So....not really appropriate. I'm sure there is a balance that can be struck. The waaay too in-universe one was right, IMO, to be removed. For instance, "full name" isn't necessary. He's Danny Torrence. He's not real, so any middle name is irrelevant. We know he's human. That's only relevant if he wasn't, and we needed to point that out. He's not real, so he doesn't get an age. Family would only be necessary if there was a particular family member that was be essential to understanding Danny. So, maybe Jack, but no one else that is for sure. Alias can go, because he's not well known enough to have aliases. You could probably include "Abilities", as it would be essential to the character to point out that he is psychic. There should be a middle ground with that. It isn't about "in-universe" verse "no universe". It's about essential to the character. Being clear that some is story information and other is just real world information.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  21:00, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * What about this with a "Fictional details" grouping? Any feedback on that? Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 21:59, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I would personally put real world info all at the top and not sandwich it around fictional info. Not sure I would include Wendy. She doesn't have a page and is nowhere near as known as Jack Torrence (mostly because of Jack Nickelson). That's just my opinion, not something grounded by any specific guideline that it should be a certain way (outside of the obvious: "only essential info").   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  01:45, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for pinging me into the discussion. My opinion, for what it's worth:

I'm happy with this version. This version is also OK, but the word "fictional" should be removed from the headings: the word "fictional" isn't a magic wand that fixes "in-universe" descriptions, and in the context of the current state of the article, it's not needed in the infobox. This version of the infobox is way too much, though. --Slashme (talk) 07:44, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Infobox redux
wants to change this article's infobox to include more in-universe information, such as occupation schoolboy, religion Christian, and nationality American. Their version can be found here. I find the status-quo version here to have all the important information needed. The other details are grossly unnecessary. What do other editors think? Pinging, , from last discussion. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 18:24, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I think the data points listed are immaterial to what makes the character relevant/significant and are probably best left excluded. DonIago (talk) 18:29, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree. The point of an infobox isn't to carry every possible data point about a topic. It's supposed to list key bits of information. Wikidata is a better place to list every conceivable attribute of the character. - - Slashme (talk) 22:06, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: The infobox that I inserted is copied from his father's, which is why, religion Christian, and nationality American were in there. In my second |edit, I removed info about his occupation and what species he is. There is frivolous information in that infobox but it can be removed. Why should Danny and Jack have separate infoboxs anyway. The Optimistic One (talk) 02:48, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * This strikes me as a better argument for paring down Jack's infobox, though it may be that some of these data points are more relevant to him. I could certainly see his religion, for instance, being more pertinent, though I'm not sure it really makes any difference to the book/film either. DonIago (talk) 06:03, 6 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Unless it was removed, I could swear that the infobox guideline says only include things essential to understanding the character, and not to treat them like they are real people. This also should be applied to Jack (or any character infobox). As I see it, his full name is not relevant because he isn't real, and is known as Danny Torrence. His sex is irrelevant because it's obvious from the picture and only needs to be pointed out if it was a contentious item (a transgendered/transsexual character who may look androgynous). As far as family goes, only Jack needs to be listed as only Jack adds any sort of additional context to this character. If you list his daughter, who somehow also has a page, then it would go in "Family" or "Relationship" type of category with Jack his father. Nationality and religion are irrelevant to understanding the character. If his story was contained without warring factions of countries or religious groups, then maybe those could be relevant. As it is, not really currently. I would also remove the film identifies in the portrayed section, they just bog down the infobox.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  14:11, 6 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Can you explain what you mean with the last sentence? You mean simply list the actors without the works? I'm not sure if I like that, but I don't mind further trimming. Maybe the article body could just have a section listing fictional appearances, to separate it from the infobox? Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 15:31, 6 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I didn't really look at the article, so I assumed there was an actual appearances section or portrayal section as exists with most fictional character articles that are GA or FA. Yes, I was saying do away with the identifies in the infobxo because of that. To me, they end up cluttering the infobox with speciality settings to make them fit (i.e., having to make someone small, break it do another line, etc. to fit in the box).   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  17:37, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * , how about this? Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 18:58, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Why isn't the respective actors included in the infobox? The Optimistic One (talk) 19:59, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

This is what I meant:

The only reason I don't have Ewan in this is because he technically hasn't appeared as Danny Torrence. He's filming the part, but this indicates he's made an appearance, which is not true (yet).  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  16:05, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I prefer your infobox over the current. The Optimistic One (talk) 01:04, 8 December 2018 (UTC)