Template talk:Infobox actor/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Othername

I've presumed that the othername category, described as "any other name the person has been known by" means widely known, and not merely something one person or another might have called the person, i.e., a spousal nickname, or the name of a character the actor might have played. Would it not be helpful to clarify this? I've heard people (usually fans) call famous actors by their character name, but that wouldn't qualify as "othername", would it? To throw the net wide enough to include such things would, I think, open infoboxes to enormous clutter. Thoughts? Monkeyzpop (talk) 22:02, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Have you seen anyone try to use this parameter for character names? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:10, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes. That was the reason for my original post. It's been nearly a month and I've forgotten who, but I had a bit of back and forth with someone who swore that a certain actor's character name in some film should be included in his othername category. I went to the template guide and was surprised to see there was no clearly-defined definition and thought there ought to be, thus the request for discussion. Monkeyzpop (talk) 16:14, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

It wouldn't hurt to explicitly state this in the documentation, so I was bold and did so. PC78 (talk) 16:36, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Origin

Is it possible for anyone to add an "origin" field to this infobox as per the musical artist one? Very helpful to add info if someone grew up somewhere other than where they were born.

Thanks.

92.3.174.204 (talk) 11:54, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Better to replicate the birth_place/ residence/ nationality/ ethnicity parameters from {{Infobox person}}, on the interests of standardisation. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

categorization

We should place this template under Category:Actors. --Scriberius (talk) 20:34, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

No, because it's a template, not an actor. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Additional hCard microformat parameter

{{editprotected}}

Please add |class4 = role. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:56, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Not done for now: Can you please explain why? --ANowlin: talk 01:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

As per the heading above; to add an additional parameter to the template's hCard microformat. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:03, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

That part was clear, the part that isn't clear is what the result of that change will be. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:22, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

That will be the result. What's not clear about that? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:02, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

My bad; role not category - request amended; above. See {{Infobox person}}, where this is already in use Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't know anything about these microformat thingies, but if anyone does it's Andy, therefore  Done —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 05:23, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you; both for your action and your kind comment. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:34, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Merge with Infobox person

With the exception of minor variation in parameter naming and the slightly unusual handling of the URL property, both easily resolved, this template is entirely a subset of {{Infobox person}} and should, I believe, be merged with that template. The only argument I've heard, for not doing so - that the existence of this template prevents the use of some fields from the other template - is, I believe not valid; we shouldn't have templates just to stop other templates from being fully utilised. I'm prepared to run this by TfD for wider community input, but thought it best to check here first to see if this can be done quickly and without dissent. If so, I'll ask for a BOT to do the conversion. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:11, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

One dissent here. I think the excessive parameters in infobox person is a very valid reason not to merge these two templates. Garion96 (talk) 11:23, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Can you explain why (as in, what are the negative effects on Wikipedia readers or editors) you think that (given that its possible for, say, a film or theatre project page to have a copyable blank with a limited sub-set of fields? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:35, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

As explained in more detail below the POV, sourcing and edit warring over certain fields are a vast negative effect on editors. MarnetteD | Talk 01:38, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Ideally it would be nice to keep this infobox seperate, but with no unique parameters it's pretty hard to argue against a merge. I do have some reservations about how {{Infobox person}} would be used for actor biographies, but hopefully WP:FILMBIO could come up with some basic usage guidelines. PC78 (talk) 13:13, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Anyone else have a view? Can we move forward with this? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 00:37, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

The guidelines on wikipedia ebb and flow. There may be no unique parameters between the two now but it is highly unlikely that they will stay that way forever. The actor/filmmaker project could well come up with something that they would like to add/subtract from the current box and it will be much harder to gain a consensus to get that done with the person infobox. Also as Garion96 points out the person infobox parameters are excessive. I have just noticed that there are no unique parameters as to what we have included but there are several that we have excluded. Three things right off that consensus removed from the actor infobox over the years - "ht/wt", "notable works (which we called roles)" and "awards" (I think ours grew to about 20 different fields). We removed the last two because of both POV and endless edit warring problems. I don't think that the actor infobox had them but the "Influenced by" and "Influenced" fields also have constant edit warring and sourcing problems. We just have far more flexibility (a strength not a weakness) having the infoboxes separate so I am not in favor of merging with the person infobox. MarnetteD | Talk 01:38, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

OK; I don't think those are good reasons not to merge, so I'll take it to TfD for a wider community input. Also, bear in mind that no project owns an infobox. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 07:46, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the pros outweigh the cons. While I too have a few reservations about some of the parameters in {{Infobox person}}, there are plenty that would be of benefit to most if not all actor articles. Should the infobox for Tom Cruise note that he is a Scientologist? Should the infobox for Verne Troyer include his height? Should the infobox for River Phoenix state a cause of death? Should the infobox for Bruce Willis make it clear that he is American (and not just that he was born in Germany)? I'd say yes to all of them. This template is very limited, whereas {{Infobox person}} offers greater flexibility and would be more informative. Parameters should only be used where relevant, and information should be sourced where necessary. I just can't see any valid reason to stick with this template when it offers nothing unique. PC78 (talk) 07:53, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Quite. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 08:06, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

{{Editprotected}} Please add {{Tfm-inline|{{subst:PAGENAME}}} as discussed above.

Meanwhile, further comments should be added at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 August 20#Template:Infobox actor. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 08:06, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

 Added — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:43, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Is there any reason that the fields that you want to add couldn't be added to the actor template? POV and sourcing are entirely good reasons and there is no pro to endless edit warring over notable roles and awards. I am wondering why this discussion is being moved when you are the only editor that is 100% for this move in the discussion on this page. MarnetteD | Talk 11:47, 20 August 2010 (UTC) Update: I see that PC 78 is now okay with the merge so it is wrong to state that only one is in favor of the proposal. However input by only four people is hardly representative of the wider community that work on the actor articles. MarnetteD | Talk 12:22, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Which is why this has been taken to TfD (as I said I would do, in my opening remark); for wider community input. You described my action there as the discussion having " been summarily closed and moved". I also note that PC78's remarks pre-date your 2:1 claim. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:50, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

As I have already noted on the page where you moved the discussion I did not see PC78's new comments when I made that post. I was looking at the in the "Editing template talk"window and your signature has so much going on in it that my I did not see your "Quite" comment followed by your signature. I saw your signature as the end of the longer comment by PC78. Entirely my fault and all apologies are offered. MarnetteD | Talk 16:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Ya, there are really good reasons to not port code from 'person' to 'actor'. a) it's work that has already been done, b) if refinements are made at 'person' they would have to be made at 'actor', too (and however many other forks are out there). Consolidation of things into standard implementations is absolutely the norm and is widely viewed as best practice in the software field. Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:41, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Occupation field

Is it possible to add an "s" to Occupation, just like it does for the music template. That reads Occupation(s), and this should be the same because some actors are not just actors; they could have a whole variety of occupations listed, such as director, novelist, activist, screenwriter, athlete, chef, TV host, etc. Tinton5 (talk) 17:09, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Transition to Infobox person

I have changed the code to call {{Infobox person}}. It appears this template could now be safely substituted, which would convert the transclusion to use the person infobox. Let me know if I made a mistake. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:20, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Just looking at testing a change from infobox actor to infobox person (check my edits on this article). The first change was to simply replace actor with person in the template, but this hides all the fields, except for occupation. Birthdate needs to become birth_date, birthplace to birth_place (same with deathdate and place). othername needs to become other_names (not the extra "S"). Yearsactive needs to become years_active. Hopefully a bot can do one sweeping change on all infobox actor pages, and update the parameters above too! Lugnuts (talk) 07:06, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

There is a discussion in User talk:Magioladitis of how to proceed. Yobot is already updating all parameters to be the same with Infobox person. Of course, we could follow Plastikspork's approach and do everything in one step. Then is the question of the tracking category for the articles needing images. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I 'll start adding WPBiography to all articles that transclude this infobox and they don't have it. I don't know exactly how we can use this to retain the tracking category. A real question is "Do we really need the tracking category?". 23,000 of the 27,000 articles were included in the tracking category. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:06, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Just drop it. Tracking categories are supposed to be for manageable tasks, with the expectation that they'll be temporary. This is just a cleanup category by another name, and there's nothing peculiar to actors which makes their having photos more important than all the other biographies we have which lack them. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 14:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Done. I 'll delete the category. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

How boring

What a boring place this is. Oh I'm sure "consensus" and "policy" ruled that the infobox colours weren't necessary or informative, but the old infobox looked a lot nicer and the colours allowed you quick and easily to see who was dead and who was alive, but who cares about things like that? Gran² 11:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

How we proceed

Now both {{Infobox actor}} and {{Infobox person}} share the same parameters. I think the tracking category isn't interesting anyway (it has more than 20k entries!). I think we can just replace Infobox actor with a redirect and finish the merge. What do you think? -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:54, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I think you can probably just lose it. It appears to be a recent addition that was never discussed anyway. PC78 (talk) 14:17, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

OK. I converted Infobox actor to a redirect. We are done. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:58, 8 September 2010 (UTC)