Template talk:Firefly (franchise)

Color
Must it be colored like that? It looks strange to me. --OGoncho 21:26, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I created the template, and simply colored it as I saw fit. Mainly to be different, look cool, and to be functional.  (Ended up looking like the Stargate templates I styled.  Feel free to be bold and edit away. -b 03:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've softened it a bit. --OGoncho 22:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Didn't mean I actually wanted you to! Hahaha, naw, it looks good. I was just playing around with something new and different. -b 23:02, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Episodes
Is it really nessesary to put episodes on the Firefly Template? Previous and next episodes can already be found on the episode template, and the full list is provided on the main Firefly episode. I believe the template looks too...bloated now. I'm going to revert it for now, unless we reach a consensus... -b 21:19, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, I wont revert, but I still don't like it. Input please. -b 21:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I put in a line break after "Jaynestown," it looks better now. --Pentasyllabic 21:23, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * However, if the browser window resizes, it'll totally screw up the layout. -b 21:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I like it, but I'm the one who added the episodes.Shsilver 21:28, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I suppose in a way it's nice to have every Firefly article under one banner.
 * A while back I was thinking about having two templates. One would be for all Firefly episodes, the other would be for the episodes.  They'd have the same color scheme and all, but the one for the episodes would only have the episodes, and a link back to the main article. -b 21:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Ordering
On a different topic, shouldn't Serenity (comic) appear before Serenity (movie) in the template since the comic takes place before the film? Was there a reason you ordered them as you did?Shsilver 21:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I ordered them as they came to mind, so basically by importance. No real reason. -b 21:44, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Two template suggestion
Like this, with one template one each article, if it's an episode article, it gets an episode template, all other articles get the main Firefly template. -b 22:54, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Merged templates
I have merged the episodes template with this one, in order to have all articles covered by one template. The Wookieepedian 04:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Soundtrack
While the soundtrack may not be technically a spin-off, I think it does belong in the template, and the way it is set up, that seems the most logical place. Any other ideas where it should be? Shsilver 20:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, if we put that, we would have to put the Serenity soundtrack as well. The Wookieepedian 20:22, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Based on the discussion for Firefly and the soundtrack, it would make sense to split the Serenit soundtrack out, in which case, I'd advocate adding both soundtracks to the template. Shsilver 20:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Sounds good. I'll go over to the Serenity page, and split the soundtrack section off. Maybe we can make a new section on the template for them, since they aren't technically spin-offs. The Wookieepedian 20:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Done. The Wookieepedian 20:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I am proposing that, since the Wikiproject is called Firefly, the parent product of the Wikiproject is called Firefly, and that the umbrella article, Firefly (franchise) has recently been renamed from the less appropriate Serenity, that the template should reflect that as well. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  03:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Here, here! kingdom2 (talk) 04:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Where, where? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * But support; probably simplest, although the name of a template is deeply unimportant: no reader will see it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Its usually the smallest things that cause the deepest confusion. It shows up in avery article its used in as Serenity, which is confusing. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  18:21, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Everything else is named Firefly. Just move it already and be done with it. kingdom2 (talk) 19:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Actors in navboxes
As I understand it, we don't include actors in navboxes per WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers/Consensus summaries. Therefore navbox doesn't belong on the relevant actor per WP:BIDIRECTIONAL. However editors keep reverting my edits. Comments would be appreciated at User talk:Lexein#Firefly navbox. --Rob Sinden (talk) 21:31, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * NO, not on my talk page. Ridiculous. Better here, since your misreading of discussions here is fueling your deletions. WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers/Consensus summaries is A) a very buried place to dredge deletion rationale out of (which you didn't cite correctly until two editors badgered you for it. B) unsearchable search term "no actors in navboxes" C) rather odd that all that discussion occurred and I never heard about it, even though I've edited several actor pages. Those discussions are quite deletionist-slanted IMHO, and would do anything to delete content and navigation from the wiki, so it's fundamentally against the project, D) I fundamentally disagree with the exclusion of actors from the informative Firefly TV series template E) I've seen nothing in the various walls of text which concisely list clear, concise rationale for such deletions of either the actor names from Firefly, nor Firefly from articles. F) I've seen nothing in the actual MOS or guideline anywhere which forms a basis for Robsinden's deletions. --Lexein (talk) 21:47, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Imagine a situation where you had an actor that had been in 30 different TV programmes, each with its own navbox. If we included actors in those navboxes, we would have 30 navboxes on that actor's page, which hardly aids navigation.  THAT is why we don't include actors in navboxes, and there is masses of prior consensus for this as I have demonstrated.  Just because you haven't heard of this consensus doesn't mean it isn't there.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 22:10, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Dismissing the hypothetical. This TV series infobox is for the TV series, and the series represents each of the actors' major notable or first major TV series work. At no point do I suggest here, nor do I necessarily support, an actor navbox. I think you're misreading so badly that you're acting against the consensus for this particular TV series infobox. And pay attention: no actors in navboxes is not listed in this project's main page, especially not in WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers. --Lexein (talk) 22:27, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * There is a mass of longstanding consensus against the inclusion of actors in navboxes, as you'll soon see when other members of this and the template project get involved/wake up. You'll be hard pushed to find any other TV series navbox with actors in, with maybe a couple of exceptions, and there is good reason for this.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 22:31, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * If there was so much consensus, why isn't it memorialized directly and clearly in the damned WikiProject, or MOS, or other guidelines? You are presently acting improperly, making mass changes with false, unsearchable, improperly linked edit summaries based on "consensus" which was never stated publicly as an essay, Project point, MOS, or other guideline. And that is stating it civilly. --Lexein (talk) 22:37, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The fact that you could not find the consensus may be an oversight on the part of the project, and once we get this cleared up, maybe we should bring it in to the MoS. In the meantime, you need to watch your edit summaries.  Saying that everything that you disagree with is "wrong", is WP:UNCIVIL and abrasive.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 22:44, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:BIDIRECTIONAL, we do not transclude templates onto articles which are not included in the navbox. Therefore, navbox should only be transcluded if we decide that it IS appropriate to include actors. But, consensus has previously been against this as if we start creating navboxes for cast lists (and we shouldn't differentiate between film and television in this respect) then every actor's article will end up full of navboxes, something that is not helpful. Would still appreciate wider views on this, but for the moment we do not include. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:11, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You're saying there's "a mass of longstanding consensus", could you please provide a link to any of these consensus-building discussions? Being able to see the actual discussions and what exactly was discussed/agreed upon would help quite a bit. - Aoidh (talk) 10:47, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Same rationale as WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers/Consensus summaries. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:57, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * This isn't a filmography template for an actor; a consensus that a filmography navbox is redundant to a filmography table within an article isn't a consensus to remove a different type of template. Are there any other discussions?  If that's it, then I wouldn't say there's a previous consensus.  A similar consensus on a slightly related topic, perhaps, but not a consensus regarding this type of template. - Aoidh (talk) 11:06, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It has definitely been discussed before, but I can't think of examples of discussions. However for evidence of the consensus, if not the discussions themselves, consider the navboxes of any major TV or film franchise - you will not find the actors in the navboxes of any of these.  Take Star Trek for example, and it doesn't get more iconic than that...  --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:10, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, found some:
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers/Archive 3
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers/Archive 3
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers/Archive_3
 * Hope these are sufficient for everyone to show prior consensus and precedent. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:18, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow. There's no consensus at any of the discussions you've trotted out. No consensus at all. You repeating yourself doesn't make anything you're saying more true. I'm reverting you again as having not made your case in any way. Take me to ANI. I'm not wrong here, and you are acting without consensus. --Lexein (talk) 14:52, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, it's clear you're reading the consensus differently to me, and there's no way we're going to come to an agreement here. You think you're right, I think I'm right.  We need to seek further wide opinion on this (which I was hoping for from the projects but neither seem to want to get involved).  Maybe an RFC?  --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:57, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Ha! Reading back in the archives, I've just spotted that I was for including cast in 2009, but was subsequently shown the error of my ways! --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:02, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


 * There simply cannot have been consensus, because the (many, many) discussions never turned a particular direction (nobody was persuaded, or wrote so), none were closed (by either admin or non-admin) as consensus, none were summarized at any end of discussion (because the discussions never really ended, they just stopped, miserably, ground to a halt, at loggerheads), and none were codified anywhere (essay, guideline, MOS, policy). Why not? Because there was never consensus, because it was never settled. Just a bunch of bull-in-china-shop editing, consistently and repeatedly opposed by editors who wanted some sort of policy-guided rationale, and now wikilawyering "rationales" by you, based on nothing. Sorry, repetition by you does not consensus make, so you've been operating claiming consensus where there was never any. --Lexein (talk) 16:13, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Surely precedent has some bearing on consensus here. This is, as far as I can see, the only TV or film series navbox to include actors.  Why should we treat this differently to any other? --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:29, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * As I said - we disagree. However, consensus or no, can you not see the impracticality of including the cast in navboxes for TV and film series and how this would start to clog up the actors' pages?  What would be the inclusion criteria for an actor in a navbox?  We could potentially end up with navboxes consisting purely of cast.  Couldn't these navboxes then supplant the need for cast sections in series and films?  --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:21, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * No, not for low-series-count actors, and especially with collapsible navboxes. And certainly not at Firefly actors' pages. Further, given the growth of tabbed subarticle presentations, eventually there will be tabbed groups of navboxes. So no, I don't see any sort of horrible massive problem, either technically, or visually. Oh, and per WP:Edit summary, you could do worse than start leaving some, btw. --Lexein (talk) 16:55, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * But where's the criteria? What determines "low series count"?  What happens when the star of a show is not included in a navbox because of "high series count", but his/her co-stars are included because of their low series count?  It would be unmanageable.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 17:03, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Well as it stands it looks like its 3 to 1 for leaving the navbox in we have myself, Lexein, and Aoidh for it with Rob Sinden being the only one against it, and he hasn't given a good reason that they should be deleted from the pages other than some twisted sense of WP:OWN. I have read the WP:BIDIRECTIONAL article and it does not say "no actors are allowed in navbox" as stated by Rob Sinden. Also as stated earlier by Aoidh I have not seen any consensus-building discussions from WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers/Consensus summaries that would cause me to change my opinion Sarty72 (talk) 22:11, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You haven't expressed an opinion other than WP:ILIKEIT, and Aoidh asked for clarification, which I gave. I would also remind you that this is WP:NOTAVOTE (but if you are counting, don't forget User:Nymf's comment and edit .  You don't understand the point of WP:BIDIRECTIONAL, which is that if the article isn't in the navbox, then the navbox isn't transcluded on the page, that's the issue there, nothing to do with the actors in that case - that's the justification for removing the navbox from the articles whilst the actors aren't present.  You yourself in an edit summary of this navbox said "ok, take out the actors names", so if you agree to that, then per WP:BIDIRECTIONAL the navbox needs to be removed from the articles.  However, the issue here is one of precedent and consensus.  There have been countless discussions for TV series navboxes where the actors have been removed or the templates deleted ( - there are plenty more) - that precedent demonstrates consensus.  I am not aware that any outcome has ever been made to retain the actors in navboxes following a discussion.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 00:02, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The fallacy there is that storm troopers form consensus by shooting everything up. Actions do not consensus make. Getting away with it does not consensus make. Only discussions with consensus outcomes form consensus. WP:CONSENSUS. --Lexein (talk) 00:38, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I would say the general recent consensus is to not include the actor links, but I don't have as strong of an opinion on it as I do on actor-centric navboxes. Frietjes (talk) 19:10, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

As other editors have pointed out, there is a long-standing consensus against including actors in this sort of navbox. For some examples, see the list of TFD discussions posted by Rob Sinden. Lexein says that "only discussions with consensus outcomes form consensus", which is not true (see WP:EDITCONSENSUS) ... but even if it was, there are plenty of discussions which were closed with a clear consensus against using navboxes in this way. I have just looked at a version of the template which included the actor links, and examined 5 of those linked biogs: Torres, Tudyk, Baldwin, Fillion, Staite. In each case, the actors are most notable for their roles in several different productions, so a navbox focusing on their role in one of those productions is a form of WP:OVERLINKing which gives WP:UNDUE prominence to one part of an actor's career. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:41, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose putting actors in navboxes. In the course of their careers, actors will usually take part in many different productions.  If they are included in navboxes for multiple productions, the result will be massive overlinking which causes clutter at the bottom of each article. For exactly the same reason, categorising actors by performance has long been deprecated: see WP:OC.
 * Thanks for your input. Although I don't expect this to be the end of the matter, all the time the navbox does not include the actors, the navbox is not to be transcluded on the article pages per WP:BIDIRECTIONAL, so I have taken the liberty to remove them (again), as we haven't had any movement on the issue in a month.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:41, 6 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose putting actors in navboxes. What BrownHairedGirl said. If you look at Morena Baccarin, her subsequent career already includes starring roles in V and Homeland among many other appearances. Handling just her and all the other actors appearing in those series too would open an unmanageable Pandora's box. --Mirokado (talk) 15:53, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

The Shepherd's Tale
I'm not sure why The Shepherd's Tale was missing from the Comics section. Is it because it doesn't have it's own dedicated page (links back to main Serenity Comics page)? It is given it's own number on the hardback volumes as 3, so I figured it would be more correct to list it than not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.14.206.44 (talk) 21:33, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, because it doesn't have its own pag, it isn't listed. Navboxes navigate between pages. I've removed it, until it has its own page. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  21:43, 11 May 2017 (UTC)