Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Will Schuester

Let me start off with a proposal for a compromise: What would be wrong with writing, say: Terri Schuester (wife episodes 1-N; divorced episodes N-M)? Or alternately, (wife Jan 1, 2000 - Jan 2, 2001; divorced Jan 2, 2001-present) using either in-universe dates if available, or episode air-dates? Andrevan@ 05:09, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, I think that the way that CTJF83 is proposing we do it is not the way that is commonly reflected by the consensus of the editing community. Look at any single infobox and you'll see it represents the "present" of whatever series that character is in.  While I mean no disrespect to our mediator, I think the suggested compromise would be a step backward, since, (a) it "clutters up" the infobox with a longer string than a simple "(divorced)" would, and (b) it is extraneous, as marriage is a binary state; if one is divorced, one is by definition not married. WCityMike 14:43, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that is way too much, and way too detailed for an infobox. That is my concern, too much detail in the infobox. I have no problem with listing the information in the body of the article. C T J F 8 3  pride 06:25, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, an additional word "(divorced)", "(ex-wife)", etc. is not "too much detail in the infobox" as reflected by the consensus of the editing community. Nearly every single article -- and certainly an overwhelming majority -- that has a divorced character has that fact that that relationship is a divorce (or a widowing or etc.) reflected by this means in the infobox. WCityMike 14:44, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the problem here primarily stems from the infobox itself. As of right now, there are many things that clash with WP:WAF. Specifically, WAF calls for all in-universe infobox info be "essential to understanding the character" (i.e., without it would harm a readers' understanding of the character). Few things are that, and even less are people. When you get into in-universe info like spouses, you run the risk of both making the character seem real (which goes against how you write about fiction), and apply significance to the other character. If a reader does not know who that character is (e.g., because they are not well known like the relationship between Lois Lane and Clark Kent), then a mention in the infobox becomes one with no context. "Who is this person and why did they divorce?" This is why in-universe info is intended to be limited in the infobox and we have had to do a purging in the past of these types of categories because of similar problems to this--people wanting to include every in-universe aspect of the character even when it isn't essential to understanding the character or has no context. It was briefly discussed that we may need to do some more purging after this current debate was brought to our attention.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  12:22, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * These shows are heavily focused on relationships as a primary aspect. They're almost soap operas.  One could probably even strike the "almost" when it comes to shows like "Grey's Anatomy" and "Private Practice."  I think that the in-universe information of which characters in the show they have been married to is information that is essential to understanding the character, as I indicated in my comment on the front page. WCityMike 14:43, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * First, they are not soap operas. Just because they are drama does not make them soaps. Secondly, it's even sketch for soap opera infoboxes, because you have no idea who these people are. There is no context available in an infobox. So what is "Character X" was married to "Character Y"...I don't know who either one of those characters are, and knowing they were married doesn't actually help me understand who either is. That is why those fields are typically non-essential and should probably be removed (i.e. we're going to have to start up another discussion about it as well as other fields that hold no real value).   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  14:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Are we going to loosely re-fight this here? My understanding is that loose, undirected talk-page responses is not what the mediation process is really supposed to be about.  As of now I'm not seeing too much of a difference between an uncontrolled, undirected disagreement taking place on here instead of on one of our talk pages or the article's talk page.  To address your response, soap opera – "[a] television serial, typically broadcast in the afternoon or evening, about the lives of melodramatic characters, which are often filled with strong emotions, highly dramatic situations and suspense."  Matches these shows to a T.  As for not knowing who these characters are, and that not-knowing meaning the information has no value in an infobox -- that's what wikilinks are for. WCityMike 15:46, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

And what would be the problem from removing all the parentheticals like (divorced) from infoboxes entirely? Andrevan@ 20:56, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It's an action that runs directly counter to the article's ultimate end goal of disseminating information about the subject clearly and understandably. If I am visiting an article and see a list of five names under "spouse" with no further information as to the relationship of those individuals with the character, it's demonstrably less useful.  If I see: "Family: Joe Schmoe (father) Ann Schmoe (mother) Brian Schmoe (brother) Quinn Schmoe (sister)" and "Spouses: Ann Smith (ex-wife) Andrea Smith" -- this provides more data understandbly at a glance than "Family: Joe Schmoe Ann Schmoe Brian Schmoe Quinn Schmoe" and "Spouses: Ann Smith Andrea Smith".  In the latter example, a reader is left wondering what specific relationship Ann and Quinn have to the character, and whether the character is bigamous and married to both Ann and Andrea (as might be the case in, say, a "Big Love" character) or, if not, what happened to either Ann or Andrea, and which of the two is the current wife, and ... you get the point.  It runs directly *counter* to the purpose of informing the reader about the character; it is an act of muddying, of making data ambiguous and unclear. WCityMike 22:54, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Why not remove the spouse and other family altogether? Andrevan@ 17:30, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * These shows are so focused on relationships as a primary aspect that they're soap operas ("a television serial, typically broadcast in the afternoon or evening, about the lives of melodramatic characters, which are often filled with strong emotions, highly dramatic situations and suspense"). The relationships between characters are so intrinsic to the show that they meet the WP:WAF-INFO requirement of "in-universe information" that is "essential to understanding the character." 00:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Can't we agree that there is some "infobox creep" here though? If the content is too complicated to explain without getting into detail, then why should it be included? Andrevan@
 * I don't see it as "infobox creep," no. I don't agree with the "if" clause: I don't think that including a single paranthetical word in small print after a name is "getting into detail." WCityMike 23:10, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * How far into the series does the status changed from married to divorced? Is it basically the status quo the whole time, or a sudden development that could be a "spoiler" and might need explanation? Andrevan@ 02:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe that the character discovered his wife's betrayal in an episode that aired in December, on the "half-season finale" -- about 13 episodes in. When the series resumed in April, he and his wife were separated, and I believe their divorce was finalized in the season finale or the episode preceding same.  It's not a sudden development.  WCityMike 03:08, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * So wouldn't it be a spoiler for someone watching from the beginning? Furthermore, isn't is not "essential" to the character if it's something that changes according to plot developments? Andrevan@ 20:32, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No, and no. As to spoilers, the oft-quoted WP:SPOILER makes it pretty clear that an article's content should not be diluted to accommodate people who might not have seen an episoded within the series.  As to the second question, to suggest that something is essential to a character only if it is unchanging throughout the run is not sensible.  "Plot developments" to a character are parallel to life to a real human being; just as different things may become essential to our intrinsic selves as the circumstances of our lives change, so may different things become "essential" to a character as plot developments change. WCityMike 21:56, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

This is a question for Ctjf83. Why is it that this infobox should be held to a different standard than other infoboxes of fictional characters? Is this a battle over Will Schuester, or infoboxes in general? Andrevan@ 23:27, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * In general, I only brought Will up because I have him on my watchlist. Like I've stated before, I think the infobox should summarize the character overall, how they are in most episodes, and then the body of the article can give specifics. C T J F 8 3  chat 18:02, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That really didn't answer my question. Let me rephrase. How does this article differ from the examples given of deceased, divorced, former X, etc. in infoboxes? Andrevan@ 17:45, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ping! Andrevan@ 02:20, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I grew bored of this discussion...I think all examples of divorced, deceased, etc should be removed from all infoboxes, not just Will's. C T J F 8 3  chat 03:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You grew bored? Mediation isn't always fascinating. Are you willing to mediate and find a community consensus, or not? Andrevan@ 03:43, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I've never done this, so I'm not 100% sure what happens next? What do you mean by community consensus? Do we request more people comment on this page, or what? C T J F 8 3  chat 16:15, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No, please read about what mediation is. We have a discussion between the parties to the mediation, i.e. you and WCityMike. This is not an RFC. Andrevan@ 20:36, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, so what's the next step? C T J F 8 3  chat 20:38, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


 * FYI: It has been agreed that this mediation is stale, so Andrevan will be closing it within the next few days. AGK   11:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok C T J F 8 3  chat 03:39, 1 October 2010 (UTC)