Template talk:Infobox fictional location

First appearance
it would be great if we could add which is in line with Infobox character. Frietjes (talk) 14:46, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * label8= First appearance
 * data8=


 * ✅, along with some other cleanup. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:08, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Image2 and caption2
I attempted to add back in image2 and caption2. Cf. Template:Infobox country, which has image_flag, image_coat, and image_map. Many fictional countries have these; inclusion of at least two may significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic. I am not adept at editing templates; I hope I correctly edit template data and documentation. I hope you will agree with my rationale for having two images. I would appreciate it if you would review my changes and either correct any mistakes I made or completely undo my changes. Perhaps this warrants discussion on the template's talk page? Goustien (talk) 19:38, 2 October 2017 (UTC) I doubt that it will help to increase readers' understanding of the article topic. Besides which, the reason they were removed is because it is unlikely that they will be able to meet the WP:NFCC bar in multiple ways (predominantly 3a and 8). Having one image for this template alone which is non-free should raise eyebrows; a second allowed for in the template is basically unacceptable IMO. The default should be a single image; a user can add other images if they believe they will meet the NFCC outside the template. --Izno (talk) 02:43, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with Izno that second images are better suited for the body of an article, non-free or not. An infobox is not supposed to be a gallery, and this practice tends to make infoboxes "top-heavy" or otherwise unsightly/unbalanced. I also have to object to this edit by Goustien. Populating image2 with a second image from the article after a) reverting the template change and b) during a discussion per the comments above, seems like an attempt to bolster his argument of the parameter's value. And BTW, it's a great example of how unappealing two disparate images in an infobox can be.— TAnthonyTalk 05:33, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, I agree the two disparate images in the Minas Morgul infobox are unappealing; I think a flag, a coat of arms, or a map is preferable in the infobox, but I didn't want to remove "Artist´s depiction of Minas Ithil" without a discussion. Some examples of articles which do rely on two images, often free images, are Narnia (country), Archenland, Land of Oz, Wonderland (fictional country), Looking-glass world, Grand Fenwick, Demonland, Islandia (novel), etc.
 * An infobox should not be a gallery, but I see no reason to limit the number of free images to one per infobox. If this were made a general rule, it would affect a great number of templates, including, for example, Template:Infobox country, Template:Infobox settlement, and Template:Infobox islands. If applied only to Infobox fictional location, it will force editors in some cases to have to choose between using this template or a more flexible one such as Infobox country (this already happened, apparently, with the fictional country Syldavia). Goustien (talk) 07:19, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * They don't "rely on" two images, they simply "have" two images in their infoboxes. I could remove one to another section in both cases and it would likely be unreverted (but for WP:POINT in this case). The same for Syldavia. Building in a limit is a good thing in an area where it's expected that people will not want to comply with the NFCC. Those override any desire by editors to have multiple images. (But feel free to have non-free; just don't use the infobox! This is not a hard concept and is the fundamental workaround.) --Izno (talk) 16:35, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reference to WP:POINT--I hadn't read it before, but I've certainly seen this behavior on Wikipedia and been tempted to do it myself! My interest in this discussion is because I have uploaded several fictional maps to Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons, and I have tried to integrate fictional geography (including maps, flags, etc.) into literary articles on Wikipedia. But let me try to understand the concern about multiple (two) images in this infobox. I agree that we should not encourage the use of too many non-free content images in one article, and I admit this is more likely to happen in an article about a fictional country from modern literature or film than it is in an article about a real country or settlement (where one should be able to find free images from a government or other source). But can't the NFCC images be added to other sections of the article just as easily as to the infobox? I think we will still need to police NFCC images, and I'm not convinced that a change in the infobox format will make them any easier to police. In the article Krypton (comics), I was guilty of adding two NFCC images to the infobox; I have removed one and put it instead in the article Kryptonian, so there will be only one NFCC image per infobox. If you know of other violations of NFCC, I will gladly assist in reducing them.


 * On the other hand, I believe this infobox should reflect the format of infoboxes for real locations (I am thinking especially of fictional vs. real countries). Free images are not hard to find for older literature (Oz, Wonderland, maybe Ruritania), and even the newer literature (Narnia, Grand Fenwick) seems to have free images available. If Australia can have a flag and a map in its infobox, why not Oz? Goustien (talk) 04:58, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Template talk:Infobox character § Propose removal of the Color parameter
You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Infobox character § Propose removal of the Color parameter. It is currently being discussed whether to remove the color parameter from infoboxes about fictional characters and elements. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:02, 21 June 2023 (UTC)