Template talk:Infobox actor/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Years active

I have started discussing this under the "Added emmy awards" section with User:PhantomS and am moving it here to make it easier. Russian Wikipedia is using a "years active" field. An example is - Ingrid Bergman I think this could be useful here, as it would give a quick summary of when the individuals actually contributed to the career for which they are noted, and places them more quickly into a cultural context. It's already being used for musicians, so I think it has some potential for usefulness here. What does everyone think? Rossrs 01:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I support this. It would be useful for judging activity, since many article filmographies I've seen do not completely document the actor's career - either through only including major works or by ignoring tv and stage work. This addition would make it easier to see that the actor was still active, even if he or she is not doing films.--PhantomS 23:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I added a "Career Active" field to the sample. --PhantomS 03:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the information could be useful, but I prefer "Years active" as per Template:Infobox musical artist. Rossrs 12:05, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I prefer "Career Active", since "Years active" has other connotations. --PhantomS 17:07, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

... Such as...?  (Apologies if I'm missing the obvious!)  David Kernow (talk) 17:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Mostly connotations to do with old age, or that it was their only career. Considering that a career can be started and stopped for numerous reasons, word choice is important. For example, there are actors, such as Grace Kelly, who become something else later in life. In addition, there are other actors who take breaks from acting to raise children, but then return to acting later on in life. For Grace Kelly, it could be said that she had active years as both a princess and as an actress, but it could not be said that her acting career was active through both time periods. --PhantomS 20:35, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

But 'career active' does not have an obvious meaning. Rossrs 06:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

"Their career was active from x to x appears to have an obvious meaning to me, unless you have a better way of saying, "acted from x to x"? --PhantomS 20:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I know what you mean by "career active". My point is that in isolation, being looked at by someone who may not be familiar with this discussion, it's meaning is not clear. It's also awkward. I can't think of any other context where the exact phrase is used. This needs to be kept simple, and also consistent. I don't see why we have to reinvent the wheel when the Template:Infobox musical artist uses "years active" and it seems to work. The different types of infoboxes should be standard as much as possible and this is a clear example of a case where standardisation can be easily applied. With the Grace Kelly example you gave above it doesn't work. This is an actor infobox so it's obvious that in "years active" we are talking about her acting career, not her career as a princess. Rossrs 10:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Even though it's probably not the best field name for the information, "years active" does seem to be the best choice for standardization purposes, unless someone comes along with a better two word field title. --PhantomS 16:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I didn't realize that the field had been added until I noticed several articles in which it was used. I also notice that it got reverted at one point as trivial. So I will just clarify why I suggested it - it places the career into a timeline and an historical context that would not otherwise be obvious without reading the entire article, and I think it's important as it is the acting career that the person is noted for. As such it has direct bearing on the most significant aspect of their notability, far more than fields such as height, spouse etc. I've also expanded the definition of the field in the template so as to avoid confusion. Yvonne De Carlo was noted as "58" which I guess is the number of years she acted, rather than the span of years, so maybe the wording was a bit ambiguous. Rossrs 00:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Capitalization

This template existed as Infobox actor until about a month ago, which seems in line with wiki capitalization guidelines. I've moved it back (all redirects still in place). Is there a separate guidelines for Infoboxes that states otherwise? *Sparkhead 12:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I believe so ("Template:Infobox Sentence-case name") although I can't recall where exactly I read it!  Regards, David Kernow (talk) 01:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I wish you would have made this move a couple weeks ago. I just spent a bit of time the other day changing many of the "actor"s to "Actor"s.  :^) Dismas|^(talk) 17:05, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

A couple of weeks ago it was lowercase. On Oct 20, it was moved from "a" to "A" with the edit summary "moved Template:Infobox actor to Template:Infobox Actor: To follow casing used by other infoboxes." I simply moved it back. A little digging found no consistency, but lowercase used in the examples in Category:Infobox_templates, uppercase in other examples elsewhere, but what seemed to be a majority of lowercase names. I checked "What links here". "Template:Infobox Actor" has approx 125. "Template:Infobox actor" has over 1400. I would like to see a consistency there, but if one does not exist it should remain with what has the most direct links. Spark* 17:19, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Given we could ask a bot owner to propogate a change, which do you (and anyone else reading this!) prefer...?  "Template:Infobox x" strikes me as a long version of (the as yet non-existant) "Infobox:x", in which case x would begin with a capital. Regards, David (talk) 17:32, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Is that (as yet non-existent) "Infobox: x" being discussed somewhere? I have no view one way or the other, I'm simply looking for consistency (and in this case, defaulting to the one with more active links to it). Spark* 20:46, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

So far as I'm aware, the idea of a separate namespace for infoboxes has been suggested at least once. Meanwhile, my Wikipedia experience suggests "Template:Infobox Sentence-case name" seems to be a norm, probably as Sentence-case name needn't be a single word. Regards, David (talk) 02:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Background color

How is the background color set? What are the various different projects that are deciding the colors?-Wisekwai 17:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

What :\? thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 17:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

One of the parameters in the infobox is "bgcolour", but there is no explanation as to how to set the bgcolour other than "background colouring (e.g. as used in associated colours/projects)". How is the bg colour set?-Wisekwai 18:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Ahhh! In the infobox code put:

| bgcolour = #FFFFFF

Change FFFFFF to the colour you want. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 18:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Actually had to do some digging to find the color used in the example. It's #ed8. I'm wondering if it should be the default, rather than leaving editors to choose their favorite color, so that there's a standard? Template:Infobox musical artist has different colors for different artists, and detailed directions on how to set those colors. Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums is the same. But since this actor infobox is simply dealing with actors, why have a bunch of different colors?-Wisekwai 19:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Ahh.. well some projects for an example say Stargate have there own "colour" .. this pararm allows there colour to be used on actors within their project.. and some people have also adopted a colour for the deceased.. it should definitly not be used for an editors fave. colour however. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 19:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I've been seeing silver used for deceased actors and actresses. Maybe we should include that in template instructions to prevent confusion. --PhantomS 23:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes. If silver for the deceased is the style, then it should be agreed upon and spelled out for everyone. For example, have a look at Daniel Radcliffe, whom I believe is still very much alive. -Wisekwai 11:51, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Someone made a comment at Template talk:Infobox musical artist that no publication would make a distinction between living and dead performers and neither should Wikipedia, with a further comment that it is in somewhat bad taste. I quite agree, but I wonder if there is any particular reason that we need colors to distinguish between the living and the dead. I would have thought that if the death field shows a date in it, that says it all. Rossrs 12:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it is in bad taste, since it shows little respect for their life. However, there is a convention going on with the color silver, and that needs to be addressed - either through deciding a color code or by not doing colors at all. --PhantomS 17:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

One thing that I will say in favor of the silver - it looks good with black and white images. Rossrs 20:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Understood... but an image can change over time, and the majority of images in modern years (I hesitate to give a range, but lets say 1960+) are colour. Erpbridge 18:46, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

So which fields are we keeping?

I notice the debate has been going back and forth since mid July and we still don't have an answer. Several people have spoken for and against keeping the "height" and "spouse" fields in various discussions on this page.

I'm probably going to get myself in trouble again by this, but reading through all of the sections on this talk page, people have commented for and against, or have indicated opinions with side comments in other discussions here, or in the way they have edited the example box. If I have missed or misinterpreted any comments, I apologize. To summarize:

Height:
3 users have indicated that they would like to keep this field : CelebHeights, MatthewFenton, HamishMacBeth
8 users have either said they would like to remove it, or have made other negative references to it :Mad Jack, Ladida, TheTruthiness, Rossrs, Sean Black, Underneath-it-All, Shannernanner, Davey4.

Is this enough to make a decision on keeping or removing the field?

Spouse:
2 users have indicated they would like to keep this field: Andromeda, Shannernanner
3 users have either said they would like to remove the field, or have commented negatively about it. CelebHeights, Rossrs, HamishMacBeth

I don't think this is enough to make a decision - not everyone has commented on this.

So what do we do now? This page is full of discussion but nothing has changed since it began in July. I've noticed that sometimes fields get removed at FAC for example, and this forum is not necessarily representative of what happens in that type of situation. Should we take the question to a wider forum such as Wikipedia:Current surveys or can we deal with it here? Rossrs 12:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why we have to take it anywhere. This problem only affects the people collaborating here. Yes to spouse, neutral to height. I really don't care one way or another about this field. --Andromeda 14:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Spouse should be kept, since marriages are important life events that can have rather large effects. Height is trivial and can not really be confirmed for many deceased actors. --PhantomS 17:11, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

If the infobox is supposed to give an "at a glance" summary of the actor should it not contain just the most important pieces of information to help identify and understand the actor? That's my take anyhow. Specific example : Burt Lancaster's infobox lists his 3 wives, none of them notable in an encyclopedic sense. I'm sure they each had a major impact on him, and perhaps even his career, but how does it help us as readers understand Lancaster to know the names and dates he was married to 3 anonymous women? Their names are irrelevant, and the dates they were married are irrelevant. I appreciate you have a different opinion to me, but can you explain what you see as valuable in this, that I obviously don't, because I would like to understand your point of view. Rossrs 10:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

That's a particular case. In other cases, when the spouse has a Wikipedia article, is an informative field. --Andromeda 14:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's particular case but it's one of many similar cases and there are more "anonymous" spouses than famous. The infobox needs to work for all cases, and for this field, I don't think it does. Rossrs 20:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that spouses should not be in the infobox. We should keep to the important things about them as an actor like notable roles and awards. Arniep 12:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I see the spouse as important when it directly affects the actor's career. For example, Elizabeth Taylor's husbands had a rather large effect on her career and her public image. A prime example would be her two marriages to Richard Burton. Another example would be Arthur Miller and Marilyn Monroe. For another example, Ingrid Bergman effectively killed her Hollywood career for 7 years, when she left her first husband for the film director Rossellini, who ended up casting her in his Italian neorealism films. I do admit that spouse is mostly important for female actresses of those generations, but I'm sure there are probably examples of spouses being important in different male actors' careers as well. --PhantomS 16:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Those are excellent examples, but as I said above the field needs to work for all articles. It becomes a matter of POV if we say Elizabeth Taylor's husbands are important, but Burt Lancaster's wives are not. Rossrs 20:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The above is a prime example of differing opinions of contributors, which I presume is why a consensus was never met. If I can change the subject slightly, I would rather we sorted out the style of the infobox; the bold, Academy Awards, etc that was briefly discussed above. And then with a layout decided, we can add and delete fields. CelebHeights 16:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree we have other issues to sort out, but I think we should keep working towards addressing these points too. If you want to discuss the layout etc, I'm all for it. Perhaps you could use the Jack Nicholson infobox above to demonstrate any changes you think necessary. Rossrs 08:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposal for spouse field - my first choice would still be to delete it, but if we keep it, I suggest we use it only for individuals who had "notable" spouses. By Wikipedia definition "notable" can mean "is the subject of an article". That way we can record the spouses for people like Elizabeth Taylor, Marilyn Monroe, Ingrid Bergman and others, who have/had "notable" spouses. For each person it should be a full list that also includes their "non-notable" spouses. (Example : The Ingrid Bergman infobox above) I think each name should be followed by a page break and the dates of the marriage must be shown. For people such as Burt Lancaster and Myrna Loy who have "spouses without Wikipedia article", the field should not be used, as it serves no purpose. I would suggest that as we reach agreement on points, they get added to the front page as part of a styleguide for the template. Any thoughts? Rossrs 08:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't really think whose spouse is is vital to them as an actor even if the spouse is famous in their own right. Choosing whether spouses are notable or not is hopeless, what if some are, some aren't, and some are debatable- do we exclude the non notable and debatable ones? Arniep 15:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you, but was suggesting this as a compromise. It's too bad that the field was added without discussion but can only be deleted with discussion. Rossrs 20:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the spouse field should not be kept, this is not encyclopedic and does not add any interesting information to the article.--NeilEvans 19:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

It seems there are enough people who want the height field gone that it can safely go. What is the tally on spouse? --PhantomS 08:20, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, height seems to be answered.

Spouse is 3 for keeping and 5 for removing:

KEEP : Andromeda, Shannernanner and PhantomS

REMOVE: CelebHeights, Rossrs, HamishMacBeth, Arniep and NeilEvans

A majority, but not a consensus. Although if the right thing had been done, and this was discussed before the field was added, it would still not be a consensus and we wouldn't be adding the field. So.... what's the etiquette here? Rossrs 09:47, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Come on, remove it. People know it's stupid really. What about people who have 4 non notable spouses? Arniep 10:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Reverted the removal.. if its a "vote" now then add me to the "keep" - for now at least. Matthew Fenton (talk · contribs · count · email) 11:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Matthew, on the basis of a comment you made here on September 12, I already counted you as a "keep" even though you did not remain and further discuss the issue. I don't know how much fairer I could have been in regards to taking your opinion into account. If you go back to the beginning of this section, you'll see that on November 4, I added your name as one of the 3 users who wanted to keep the field. I did not overlook you. This debate needs to draw to a close and not run on indefinitely - it has been going since July. Anyone else who wanted to state a viewpoint either for or against, has had a lot of time to comment. I've removed the "height" field again. Rossrs 12:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I've removed "height". Arnie, I'd like to remove spouse also (have a look at Myrna Loy who has 4 non-notable spouses - I agree it's meaningless), but when it's removed I would like it to stick. PhantomS posed a question, so I'd like Phantom to reply to what I've written. Rossrs 11:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

and it's been reverted by someone who was already counted as a "keep". Rossrs 11:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

and again by yet another who voted to "keep". Question - what on earth is a consensus? If 8 to 3 is not a consensus, what is? Actually User:Sean Black removed the field back on September 18 with the edit summary "remove ridiculous parameter" and this was reverted with a comment that we had to reach consensus. So although Sean Black has not joined the discussion and his "vote" hasn't been counted because he hasn't made one, it's clearly a case of 3 times as many wanting to remove as to keep. What is the point of even discussing this, if users who hold the minority viewpoint in the argument can force their point? Why can a field be added without consensus but can only be removed with consensus. What part of this process do I clearly not understand? Rossrs 13:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

The whole subject of consensus is explained at Wikipedia:Consensus. It's probably best to file a request for comment at this stage. --PhantomS 19:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I had read through that earlier. Rossrs 20:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

IMDb link to add?

I think we should chuck in an IMDB option. Who agrees?

--lincalinca 03:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Already discussed under Colours / IMDB link / height. Please do not edit template without first getting responses, especially on a field that has already been discussed on here. --PhantomS 06:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Bacon Number

It might be interesting to add the actor's Bacon number, if it is known. Kidburla2002 11:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't like the idea. It's not like their birth date or something like that where it has some relevance to them. While Bacon numbers are interesting, he's just a random actor that happened to have this game associated with him. The same thing could easily have been tacked on to Burt Reynolds or Mel Brooks. Dismas|^(talk) 13:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Dismas. It's a pop culture phenomenon that is notable in itself, but the notability of the game does not extend to any individual actor, except Kevin Bacon, and this is the only actor article where mention of Bacon numbers is even appropriate. Aside from this, it would be impossible to manage - every time Bacon makes a film, numerous actors in that endless web of association, change their Bacon number. Rossrs 13:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Weight

A weight field was added, undiscussed. It isn't needed as it isn't important information (nevermind that it changes so much as to be meaningless). If an actor's weight is important enough to warrant mention, and it rarely is, it can be done in the article. --*Spark* 12:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

While I don't like the field I would like it if people stopped preaching the "Oh you have to get my permission to add a field" - if a consensus was needed for everything do you think pages would be editable and things like WP:BOLD would exist. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 12:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Any template with thousands of links shouldn't be changed without discussion, that's fairly standard practice. Adding a field with a minor edit tag is not helpful. In fact, per the discussion on height above, that field should probably be removed as well. Unless we want to add hair and eye color too. --*Spark* 12:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

It's a practice that some are subscribing to; people do not have to *not* edit things because you would like to have a rudimentary discussion prior to implementation, it is called being bold, if a situation is generally non-controversial then consensus is generally un-required, in this case I can not see a need for a "weight" field, and as it *is* now a controversial matter should the user wish to reimplement it he will now require a consensus. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 13:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm generally for it for articles. High use templates are something else entirely. --*Spark* 13:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Entirely different. We've had the situation in the past where fields such as "height" and "spouse" were added without discussion, and as you can see from the discussion that resulted above there was no consensus to delete them. If exactly the same group of editors had discussed the fields before they were added, and "voted" in exactly the same way, there would have been no consensus to add them. It's interesting that the principles of WP:Bold and WP:Consensus could achieve such an opposite result, based purely on timing. I'm glad you noticed the "weight" field and opposed it early, before it became entrenched. Rossrs 13:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

One can be equally WP:BOLD in removal as in addition, I believe, if your argument is the correct one. IMO, "weight" should only be used in templates where it serves a real purpose, such as for wrestlers, and "height" for basketball players and the like. Anywhere else, it's WP:CRUFT. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 13:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Height again

Since Weight doesn't belong, no more than eye color or hair color do, height needs to be removed as well (or the rest need to be added, which is obviously the wrong thing to do). They're all physical attributes irrelevant to the infobox. I've read the old discussion and will ask again: any objections to this? --*Spark* 12:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

None from me. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 13:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

none from me either. Rossrs 20:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Nope. --PhantomS 20:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

No reason provided to remove this, I see nothing wrong with having it. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 14:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

There has been a lot of discussion on this subject and reasons have been given, and even if you don't agree with the reasons, I hope you at least recognise that several users have made a good faith effort to discuss this and to try to explain their viewpoint. So far nobody has given any compelling reason for keeping it and in a discussion like this it's only fair that all participants are open and forthcoming with their opinions. If you feel that it should be kept could you at least qualify your opinion with something a little more substantial than "I see nothing wrong with it" which is, in essence, all you have said on this subject, in several comments. Another user told me that the field "is useful" but although I've asked several times, nobody has answered how it is useful. Rossrs 22:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

There's plenty of reasons given already. Would you like to add weight, hair and eye color? Why or why not? --*Spark* 14:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

You stating you believe it is irrelevant is well irrelevant, you need to state why it is irrelevant, you are the one wishing to remove this parameter. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 14:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

You might want to read the pages of discussion on it above. It's a physical attribute, not core information on the actor. I'd still like you to answer the question - if the discussion were for adding any of the four attributes mentioned, would you be for or against each?
Regarding new reasons: I cannot find one actor infobox with links to a reliable source for height. There is a user named User:CelebHeights who has put links to http://www.celebheights.com/ to source heights and get traffic to that site, but that fails WP:RS, and even states on its page that its numbers are guesses. IMDB also fails WP:RS. Checking some actors' websites, I do not see height in the quick summary at the top of their biographies. Can you give examples of the field being used with a WP:RS? Just as other physical attributes are absent, this one should be removed as well. --*Spark* 17:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

If they are not reliably sourced then you need to find reliable sources for the articles that are missing them. The questions you ask me are also.. irrelevant at present. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 18:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Height changes with age and is often not verifiable. In addition, IMHO, it is trivial for an actor, unless it's at an extreme. --PhantomS 18:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

They're irrelevant to the guidelines here, but your honest answers to those questions are relevant to the reasons for removal. --*Spark* 22:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Updating the tally for Height:
3 users have indicated that they would like to keep this field : CelebHeights, MatthewFenton, HamishMacBeth
11 users have either said they would like to remove it, or have made other negative references to it :Mad Jack, Ladida, TheTruthiness, Rossrs, Sean Black, Underneath-it-All, Shannernanner, Davey4,*Spark*,RadioKirk,PhantomS.

Therefore, those against is at 78.5%. I think one more (>=80%) would be enough to qualify as a supermajority.--PhantomS 18:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The height field should be removed. Athænara ✉ 03:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Because of the supermajority, will be removed. --PhantomS 03:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Height should be retained...it's very useful, and relative information. --emerson7 | Talk 18:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

It was already removed due to a 13 to 3 (81%) supermajority. --PhantomS 18:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

curses! ...down with the tyranny of the majority!--emerson7 | Talk 01:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I've put the height field back for two reasons. Firstly, Wikipedia is not a democracy and prefers not to make decisions by voting, see WP:NOT#DEMOCRACY. Secondly, if you consider the amount of people who visit the template page, let alone know to edit it, against the amount of people who have placed the height field in infoboxes all over Wikipedia, the above 'vote' amongst 14 people is nigh on meaningless. SteveLamacq43 15:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Although WP is not a democracy, supermajorities are accepted in areas such as WP:FAC, WP:AfD and WP:RfA - it's common in each of these forums for a decision to be reached even when the discussion falls short of our definition of consensus. Perhaps this question should have been taken to a wider forum. Obviously there are more editors that hold on opinion, for and against. Other editors have been using the field and would want to keep it, while comments have been made elsewhere such as in WP:FAC suggesting that "height" comes under the category of cruft. It would be interesting to know how many editors have been adding the height field. It has been added to a large number of articles, but it does not automatically follow that this represents a large number of editors. I know that one editor, for example, is responsible for many of them, but I agree that this discussion has taken place among a relatively small group. What bothers me particularly is the attitude that it's ok to be bold in adding a field and not bother discussing it, but then to insist on discussion only for removing it, which is what happened here. Had there been discussion to add the field there never would have been consensus and it would never have been added, and I really don't think this is in the spirit of WP:Bold or WP:Consensus. Rossrs 21:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

It should also noted that although people with different stands on the issue have stated that it's (ir)relevant, the fact that it is "a physical attribute, not core information on the actor" has not been addressed by those who believe it should be included. Since I'm not seeing how it's core information in any way, it seems to me it doesn't belong in an infobox. —ShadowHalo 22:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying not to repeat my previous point with this wording but, as is obvious from the above, I've not been involved in the discussion since the start, apologies if I do. If the adding of the field by whomever, which was bold, was not duelly contested then and has since been taken on by many other editors on many other articles (how, I'm not quite sure; I presume some sort of domino effect) surely, in the grander scheme of things, it abides by WP:Consensus? If nobody had jumped aboard, as it were, and the field was only used in a few articles, I would whole heartedly support deletion. As it is, that's not the case. As for the physical attribute opposition, I would play Devil's Advocate in saying that as it can't be identified from an image, nor does there really seem to be a comfortable place for it anywhere else, yet it is wholly encyclopaedic, a one line field in the infobox seems the best place for it. SteveLamacq43 00:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate that you've provided a thoughtful response, but I disagree that the inclusion was not "duelly contested". The field was reverted on July 10 and then again on July 30 by two different editors, who then made the mistake of bringing it to the talk page, where it has been the main topic of discussion ever since. They should have just said "you don't have a consensus to add this" and that would have been that. Instead they tried to be fair. That kind of backfired really. I don't doubt that the field has been added to numerous articles, however it does not automatically follow that this is the work of numerous editors. Most of them were made by one editor, as far as I'm aware, and I think most of the rest is the work of a small number of editors. WP:Consensus was never intended to be used so that a minority number of editors could railroad the majority, which is what has happened here. I feel it's been manipulated shamelessly. I also disagree that the height field is "wholly encyclopedic". Before Wikipedia started to outlaw "Trivia" sections, if the height was recorded, that's where it would usually be found. It's either trivial or it's not. Most encyclopedia's don't bother recording height unless it's relevent, and neither do most biographers. But we think it's so important that we elevate it from "trivia" and place it in the infobox even though nobody has thought hard enough on the subject to demonstrate relevance. I'm reasonable - if someone demonstrated some kind of usefulness I'm sure I'd see it, even if I didn't agree with it. Rossrs 09:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Just to summarize the initial disagreement over this field: The field was part of the original template created May 29 and was first removed on July 10 by an editor who also began a discussion on this page on July 13, with this comment. The first editor, despite the opposition expressed on this talk page, added it back on July 14, and commented on the talk page "the height was added because I saw that in another "biography" infobox template. Again, I agree with you that it is pretty irrelevant" (an excellent reason to add a field). It was removed again on July 30 by a third editor, and then restored August 1 I acknowledge that it's too late to change the past, but it's frustrating that after 5 months of discussion, the people who want to keep the field have only visited here long enough to cast a "keep vote" and then have left. They have largely avoided discussion of the issue, so any chance of reaching a consensus would be zero, because without discussion..... Rossrs 13:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Forgive me for repeating myself, but "wholly encyclopaedic" is simply not factual. Even in cases in which the data is verifiable, height, weight, measurements, eye color, hair color or any other physical attribute is fancruft unless it's demonstrably relevant to that person—and, again, "demonstrably relevant" means height for a basketball player or notably (Guinness record holder, for example) tall person, weight for a football player or wrestler, and etc. Such an attribute should be included only in the appropriately specific infobox; elsewhere, failing that standard of relevance, it should not be included. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 01:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think height belongs as a standard field for the majority of actors, for whom whether they were 176cm or 178cm is irrelevant to their acting career. I could find no consensus for adding the field. Nevertheless, I strongly suggest this issue get finalized one way or the other as it is causing disruption. Also, if the field is removed, so should its mention in usage/documentation. Gimmetrow 01:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The disruption is a problem, I agree. We need to find a better way of handling this. Rossrs 13:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Gimmetrow. The fields in an actor's infobox should be relevant to their acting career. In my opinion, I think that other than the actor's birth place, birth date and birth name, any other personal details of the actor should not be included in the infobox since this is an actor's infobox. Is there a list of guidelines in regards to infoboxes? A stricter approach may help. Also, if the editor wants to add the height information of the actor, they can always include it in the article itself and explain why the height is a significant piece of information in regards to their acting career or life. Otherwise, it is just fancruft. -- Ladida 06:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I have again put the field back because it was reverted by a user who was always intent on removing it and is now no longer discussing. Whether you agree with the field or not, as it's used in such a high number of infoboxes, removing it is a major change. To answer the above, I was of the opinion it should stay in the infobox because it takes up only one line, and to find another place in the article wouldn't be easy. Trivia has always been dodgy ground and is being clamped down. Also, physical descriptions aren't often seen in the biography section, why I'm not sure, I suppose because it could come off a bit fancrufty, for want of a better word. I've looked for guidelines, but couldn't find any, I'm going to look further now. SteveLamacq43 15:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

my previous—perhaps inappropriately facetious—comment with regard to democracy was only made because i thought the subject was closed, and was therefore added as an accent to that point. now that i see the discussion continues on, i'd like to interject that the height of an actor is 'not' just and physical attribute like hair colour, or weight which are both dynamic. even if the data is only an estimate, i think it's important to know devito, for example, is c.147 cm. it gives a particular insight on rolls for which he may- or may not have been cast, why he wore lifts in x movie, or walked on an elevated platform in y movie, or was too tall in z movie. further, though not specifically included in the wikipedia articles on presidents, many others 'do' include their heights. the height of public figures is not simply an identifying characteristic, nor is it simple fan fetishism. --emerson7 | Talk 17:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Danny De Vito is an excellent example of an actor who has been cast in particular roles because of his height (and also his overall appearance), and I agree that it's highly relevant, but I don't see that any reader would draw this conclusion simply by seeing his height shown in the infobox. While De Vito's height obviously influences the sort of parts he plays, it's not the only influence. It's the sort of thing that should be discussed in his article, and his height is only noteworthy if it's placed into a wider context. In the infobox it's just a statistic, without any context. With other actors, (the majority) being of average height this is obviously not a major factor in their casting, so for the majority it's less relevant. The physical characteristics of actors contribute to casting choices, whether it be their ethnicity, their weight, their size, or whether they are beautiful or whether their appearance is quirky, but that's not enough justification to put their varied, defining physical attributes into the infobox. I don't understand why "height" should be treated any differently. Rossrs 21:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Hair color is only dynamic in the fact that it can be artificially colored or will gradually change over a lifetime. Eye color stays the same, but can be changed with colored contacts. Height will gradually change over a lifetime, and can be artificially enhanced via lifts. How is it different than the first two? Using deVito as an justification for a height field is like using Parton as a justification for a bust field. Yes, in the case of the person mentioned that attribute is a well known one and important to their perception in the public eye. But for the vast majority that simply isn't the case. --*Spark* 18:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

With respect, I think those example are misleading. Contact, dyes, lifts etc. don't change a feature permanently, so regardless of however often he changes his appearance for a role he adopts, Johnny Depp, for example, will never be described as anything other than 5'9, black haired brown eyed, or whatever. As for height changing gradually over a lifetime, barring an accident, you're talking millimetres. With regards to my previous post, unfortunately I've still not found anything resembling rules. SteveLamacq43 20:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

So you're saying height, eye color, and hair color all fall into the same bucket. You're making my point. His photo might show him as a blonde. It's often difficult to see eye color in a low res photo. How are we to know these stats if they're not in the infobox? --*Spark* 20:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say that at all, I only repeated the examples you used. I could've put name and age into the hat because those change depending on role, but they clearly don't fall into the same group. Your photo argument is also flawed; the caption would state whether the actor is in character or not, and that would obviously change the interpretation. I don't know how where we'd fit eye colour in, maybe it's something you could work on?SteveLamacq43 20:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

No, putting eye color in is just as offbase as hair color. Or height. Height is not a core attribute for 99% of actors, just as bust size isn't. That's the point. --*Spark* 20:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I was being sarcastic. SteveLamacq43 21:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Your whole argument or the last sentence? Because you seem to be supporting removal of the field. --*Spark* 21:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Since it doesn't seem to have come up with this discussion in the last day or two, what about verifiability? Many past actors do not have recorded heights. Instead, it is only approximated on certain websites reporting to know the heights of all these actors. I'm sure this continues with some present day actors. --PhantomS 00:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

If you're talking about celebheights.com, clearly, heights that are guesses, educated or not, are not verifiable. However, some of their articles include direct quotes and sources; Tim Robbins, Nicole Kidman and Jamie Foxx are just a couple I found, briefly looking. You'd be loathe to use this out as a problem solely with this field though, as you could say the same with 99% of other information on WP articles. SteveLamacq43

That is a potentially massive error in judgment. Using mistakes as yet unfixed as an excuse to make more mistakes makes a mockery of an encyclopedia, and I cannot state this forcefully enough. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 01:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Further, and in keeping with the subject of potential massive errors, please explain to me how keeping a field available and, thereby, promoting the addition of usually unverified fancruft somehow negates the "vote" of those of us who recognize it as such? RadioKirk (u|t|c) 03:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, information in articles should, under best practices, be referenced from reliable sources. --PhantomS 02:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

That was my also my point. If that's not how you read it, I apologise, but advocating the use of unsourced info simply because 'someone else done it' is clearly not what I meant, I couldn't even see how you got that from it. I was making a throwaway comment that, whilst I don't agree with it, 90% of information here is taken for granted as true without being referenced; things a lot more important than height. To answer your next point, you refer to it as cruft, I, and another 5 or so editors up the page, do not. As you can see from above, this was my major gripe in the first place; the opinions of those who edit the template do not necessary correlate with those who edit the encyclopaedia. I would regard spouse as cruft, or at least nothing that would affect an actor's ability to get arole etc., yet I see very few disagreements over the field, but if it was solely about differing opinions, this whole argument could have easily have been about that. SteveLamacq43 15:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

If an actor's height is of sufficient note that it's the reason he or she is getting roles others might not be getting, then it should be written into the article. For everyone else, it's fully irrelevant. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 17:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Stop the revert war, now, please

I don't really care if it stays or goes during the discussion, but either the revert war will stop or the warriors will be blocked and/or the page protected. Please... RadioKirk (u|t|c) 21:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Since SteveLamacq43 seems intent on not respecting earlier voting/discussion by repeatedly re-adding the height field, I have tried to remove it again as per what has been voted on before. However, since he is intent on reverting the removal, I will leave it up to the admin and/or whatever decision comes out of this talk page on what will happen with the field. --PhantomS 00:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

It takes two (minimum) to make an edit war; the warning applies equally to all. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 00:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I admit I might have seemed to be "railroading" the issue. However, IMHO, if a field was removed because of a supermajority and a person comes along to question that, the field should remain removed until overturned by an overwhelming decision in the opposite direction. I didn't mean to participate in an editing war because of this, and I have no intention of continuing in one, since it benefits neither party. --PhantomS 02:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Precisely; we continue the discussion here until all are agreed (minus the one, if necessary) that removing the data is correct (or incorrect, for that matter). Frankly, I want it nuked with fire—as I've opined above, unless it's demonstrably notable for the individual in whose article it's included, it defines WP:CRUFT. If an editor stands alone in inclusion (or exclusion) after the issue is unquestionably decided, we'll deal with WP:3RR and WP:POINT issues then. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 02:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The snide comments aren't helping anybody. As I've said, the reason I originally reverted was because I wasn't happy with the way the original decision to delete was brought about. You refused to discuss it further and kept reverting. All I want is a decent discussion, not something that'll be over in a couple of hours or something maimed by blatant railroading, out of which comes a result, one way or the other. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SteveLamacq43 (talk • contribs)

Your edit history belies this assertion; rather than promote discussion, you revert and demand it, after having already dismissed the arguments to remove this cruft, as I note within this edit. A discussion, like an edit war, need be at least two-sided. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 03:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Steve, this discussion has been going on for 5 months, since July, and although I have tried to assume good faith, there is a lot that has taken place that I am seriously not happy about. You are I may be unhappy about different aspects of this, but my unhappiness with this process is at least equal to yours, I would imagine. This is what I am unhappy about specifically. The discussion has been extremely one-sided despite the efforts of several editors to engage both sides of the question in a meaningful discussion. Some editors have avoided discussion, and although their opinions should not be dismissed, I feel that they been given undue weight. The minority viewpoint has, in essence, done little more than 'cast a vote', without presenting a case or an argument, but has forced their will onto the group. In my opinion, this is "blatant railroading" because it manipulates the concept of WP:Consensus while avoiding it's core element - discussion.

I think that User:PhantomS has acted in good faith and with good intentions, after a very long and frustrating process, and has always been willing to contribute and discuss in a positive manner. To echo your words, I would welcome a decent two-sided discussion which will lead to an outcome one way or another. I would very much like to move forward in the hope that everyone will use their energies in a constructive manner. So, how are we to achieve this? What has been lacking in the previous discussion and how can we address this? At what point should we consider that we have discussed this topic "enough"? Rossrs 13:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

As there is a distinct one-sided nature to this "discussion". I'm still seeing little reason to keep it. If you want it kept, explain why it qualifies, for the majority of subjects, any more than the other physical attributes that have been mentioned. --*Spark* 17:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The "discussion" was not one sided, as you can clearly see from higher up the page other editors were in favour of the field, but I seem to be the only one still contributing. That's probably partly why I got fed with this about four days ago and so I'm eager to see this sorted one way or the other. WP:CRUFT states that a selection of content is of importance only to a small population of enthusiastic fans of the subject in question. If the field was only being used by a small number of fans, then we wouldn't be here in the first place; neither is poorly written, unwikified or non-neutral. Many are unreferenced, however no more than anything else; but that's no reason to say they shouldn't be fixed. Nothing I could find says that the information in the infobox must be core to the actor's career (as I said above, this whole kerfuffle could have equally been about spouse, which is not relevant to that at all, but nobody has mentioned that); by this reckoning, I could swap the infobox for a person infobox and then include all manner of things; salary, religion, children etc. The infobox, like the lead, is a quick reference point and the reason it doesn't include any of the above characteristics you mentioned is because they are dynamic/capricious and thus, incidental. Neither would they affect an actor's ability to get a role, whereas many hugely notable actors careers have been influenced by their heights; Danny Devito mentioned above, Peter O'Toole always plays imposing figures because he is tall, Schwarzenegger wouldn't be where is now if he wasn't so big, John Wayne was tall but insisted on being made to look taller, Tom Cruise is relatively short but is sure to make sure he rarely looks it, I could probably go on. I think I've addressed a good portion of your points; if I've missed one, please point it out. SteveLamacq43 22:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

When I said that the discussion was "one-sided" what I meant was that the majority of comments that related to support of the field, did so without contributing much in the form of discussion. This is voting rather than discussing, and if you only look at the discussion, without the "votes" on either side of the debate - it is very one-sided. I also think that arguing to support keeping a field is subtly different to opposing deletion and most "support" comments here address the latter more than the former. "Spouse" has been discussed as well. It didn't attract the same level of discussion but it's buried up there - you just have to look a little harder for it. I agree that height contributes to the options available to any actor, Danny Devito or Peter O'Toole or anyone you could name, but I think it's more correct to say that Devito is hired for the complete package rather than one particular attribute, regardless of how specific or distinctive that attribute may be. The infobox is designed to be a quick reference point, but his (or anyone's height) in isolation and without context, tells very little about them. If the height alone provided useful information there would be some kind of commonality, but if you look at a wider group of people who were/are below average height - for example Danny Devito, Mickey Rooney, Alan Ladd, Veronica Lake, Gloria Swanson, Helen Hayes, Mary Pickford, Estelle Getty, Dolly Parton, Kylie Minogue - they have very little in common apart from their similar height. Why have a quick reference point, and then populate it with information whose usefulness is difficult to demonstrate? Also, as most actors are of average height it's even more incidental for them despite the fact that it is not dynamic. I'd be interested to know if anyone actually uses this information in any way. As an aside, this is such an unlikely topic to provoke such a strong reaction from both sides. I'm genuinely surprised at the way this has progressed. Rossrs 09:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

"If the field was only being used by a small number of fans, then we wouldn't be here in the first place" is both non sequitur and inaccurate. Without any doubt, the number of editors adding height to infoboxes is a tiny fraction of all Wikipedia editors, and I challenge you to show a reliable source that anything other than "a small population of enthusiastic fans" cares one whit about the average performer's height, weight, eye color, etc. Meantime, as I've already noted, some of the subjects you've named above might merit mention within the article of why such an attribute is important (specific to that subject), but it should go in that subject's infobox only if that attribute is demonstrably relevant to that subject's notability. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 23:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

If you can use the term "without any doubt"; are you saying that if only a small number of editors are involved in something, it's not worthwhile? As for your next point; you lump the objects together, but you would have a much easier job finding a person's height through a search engine than you would eye colour, hair colour etc. So much so that on Google, it is even shown conspicuously above any web results. What evidence have you that these people don't edit Wikipedia? Also, if we're being picky (which I assume we are), when does a small number become established enough not to be regarded as cruft?SteveLamacq43 01:13, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but your argument continues a non sequitur comparison. A small number of editors working on something worthwhile is worthwhile; a small number of editors adding fancruft is not. Further, Google cannot, does not and should not determine our guidelines—we do not sacrifice relevance within an encyclopedia for what passes as "notability" within the rabid. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 03:05, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I in no way said that, I simply gave Google as an example. However, surely, the ease with which it is find something on the internet, or any other more reliable source, would go some way to defining it's notability detachment from cruft. Which, incidentally, you haven't proved it is. Your above comment shows you regard it as cruft, however the editors maintaining it clearly do not and, as cruft is clearly subjective, I don't see how you can continue to argue that point. SteveLamacq43 00:50, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

You used it as "proof" of your point. I use a lack of encyclopedic notability (with the exceptions noted above) as proof of mine—and, once again, a tiny percentage of editors who do not follow (for whatever reason) the concept of fancruft do not a "majority" make. My point is both valid and correct, and this is an exceptionally powerful argument against using "well, they're doing it, so..." to allow mistakes to propagate. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 04:21, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I didn't use it as proof, nor did I say anything like "well, they're doing it, so...". For somebody who stated "I don't really care if it stays or goes during the discussion...", to twist the meanings of words and misquote me, I think shows you seem to be pretty clear about which side you're on. If you're just going to keep throwing policies at me as a defined law whatever I say, which they clearly aren't, then this is never going to end. The amount you have contributed to something about which you don't care has caused far more disruption than was here in the first place; hence it's just you and I arguing. I have explained how it doesn't qualify as cruft, and how the case can, and to some extent has, been made that it exerts notability. No doubt by the time you reply to this you'll have found another policy it almost, sort of, could, perhaps, disobey. SteveLamacq43 18:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Utterly and completely false from start to finish—and I've never pulled punches about where I stand. It is WP:CRUFT, I've explained why, and I'm done with your efforts to put me in a phony light. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 20:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I was going to this talk page to complain about the height thing, too, only to find out that there already has been plenty of discussion. As far as I can see it, a majority of editors (including me) is against including the height of an actor in the infobox, and by skimming through the discussion, I can't find any argument for keeping the height in. So, does anyone strongly object to me removing it? --Conti|✉ 21:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm loathe to repeat myself, but no matter how stupid the argument became, I feel the points I made above still stand. You say "a majority of editors (including me) is against including the height of an actor in the infobox", which was one of my main points in the first place. A majority of editors who know how to find and/or edit templates seem to be against it, but that doesn't correspond to the large amount of editors who use it on the encyclopaedia. SteveLamacq43 17:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

"It's being used" doesn't sound like a good reason to keep something to me. It's being used because it is possible to use it. If I'd add "favourite colour" to the infobox, I'm sure we'd have hundreds of entries within a week (assuming that there'd be no sourcing problem). But that doesn't mean that it would be in any way useful, and it's the same with the height, IMHO. With very few exceptions, the height of an actor is totally irrelevant in an encyclopedia entry about him. And where the height is relevant, we just mention it in the text, so even on such articles there is no need for that field in the infobox. --Conti|✉ 17:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that "it's being used" is not a sound reason. (Neither is the comment made earlier in this discussion by an editor who has since left the discussion, "It does no harm"). I'm still not convinced that anyone actually uses the field. I suspect they add it and move on to something else because so far nobody has demonstrated how the field is used. Adding info to the infobox and actually using it are two different things, and I've long believed the information is being added because "we can" not because "we should". Even the person who originally added the field has since "voted" against it, which says something about the mindset of some people adding fields and info - intent on the process of adding fields and information without critically questioning its purpose. The same could be said for "spouse". Same with the flag icon which is being added to numerous articles. The very fact of adding it does not make it relevant. Rossrs 21:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

My point wasn't meant to be "keep it because it's being used", more that the aforementioned people on this page do not a majority make. Not to go off on too much of a tangent, but if you change the subject in discussion to 'notable roles', a more POV field and a whollly less verifiable one, the discussion would still be controversial, yet it would be amongst the same number of people, that is, a tiny majority of those people who edit the encyclopaedia. I believe I've described why height doesn't qualify as cruft, and also, according to WP:Consensus, grounds for removal are slim. SteveLamacq43 01:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

So, you are opposing the removal for pure technical reasons because there hasn't been enough people supporting the removal? How many are enough, then? 20? 100? You could simply file an RfC to get some more opinions on this. Personally, I think there have been enough people involved in the discussion to form a consensus, I count over a dozen people that have commented in this thread. --Conti|✉ 02:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

That's just one of the reasons; if the votes of a handful of people are enough to change something so major, it's nothing more than a dictatorship. The main reason given for removal is that it is cruft, which is described as something used by only a small number of fans, but I dare say that if this supposedly small number of fans (which, incidentally, is incredibly unlikely) "voted" here, it would outnumber those opting to delete. I realise this has gone on for an extreme amount of time but a supermajority of an incorresponding group of users is not a good enough reason to remove something which isn't cruft and, as something that can be gained from a credible published source i.e. (obituaries, biographies, interviews etc.), rather than speciality websites, easily asserts notability. SteveLamacq43 16:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

As I said, if you want more participation in this discussion, start an RfC. I don't understand how this change can be seen as a major one tho, it is actually a rather minor one, compared to all the changes that happen on this wiki on a daily basis. And for a rather minor change like this, a dozen participants is actually quite alot, so I strongly disagree that there wasn't enough participation in the first place. And I haven't even considered that this whole meta-discussion doesn't even adress the actual situation at all. So let's please talk about whether we should remove the height section from the infobox or not, rather than why this discussion isn't big enough to warrant any action at all.

I haven't used the word "cruft" yet, and I'm not sure if the height of an actor is crufty or not. But it's certainly trivial information (with very few exceptions that I talked about earlier), like the favourite colour or the eye colour. And we usually don't (or rather, shouldn't) include such trivial information. So, it probably isn't "cruft", but not-being-cruft isn't a useful point made for inclusion.

I'm not sure I understand your second point. Are you saying that everything that can be obtained from a reliable source is per definition notable and should be included in our articles? If so, I again have to disagree strongly. A lot of trivial information comes from reliable sources, but as I just said, that doesn't mean that it's inherently noteworthy. It is our obligation to pick the most useful and noteworthy information from the reliable sources we have and create a neutral, well written encyclopedia article from these sources. --Conti|✉ 18:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I would've thought removing something used in hundreds, possibly thousands, of articles is pretty major. There was a discussion above, but I think most parties, me included, just got a bit bored with the fact it was going nowhere. I wasn't using not-being-cruft as a point for an inclusion, I was stating it because that was one of the reasons given in said above discussion for its' deletion. My second point was trying to address the only other reason given for deletion; that it doesn't pass WP:Notability. You describe it as WP:Trivia, which I've just read. One of the solutions given for trivia is to include it in the article, which I think is one of the benefits of having it in the infobox. I don't think is that it's interesting is under scrutiny, clearly, you can see by the majority of publishings available that it's of interest to many people. Whether it is important enough to warrant inclusion, I believe is what the point has been. I can't see anything on WP:NOT which describes it, so I'm off to study WP:Trivia a wee bit more. SteveLamacq43 01:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

White space

Currently, the use of this template causes a large amount of white space when it is transcluded on pages along with the Featured Article star. I have been attempting to fix this issue, but it does not seem to be working.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Examples of this are Angelina Jolie and Jake Gyllenhaal.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Since it's not affecting other non-featured articles, I'm guessing it may have to do with the featured article template. However, other featured articles using other infoboxes are fine so maybe a recent change to this template is the cause... -- Ladida 06:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

This seems to happen with a lot of other articles that I've seen as well. I'm going to look at how the template coding differs from other infoboxes to see why it claims so many lines. --PhantomS 00:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Reanalyzing those examples you gave, it is the contents box which seems to add the white space. In my opinion, the contents box should be allowed to intermix with sections that follow in order to prevent white space buildup. --PhantomS 02:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

After discussing it with Ryulong on IRC, it seems he was referring to the white space at the top. Therefore, after searching the template code, I found an unnecessary <br> in the infobox and removed it, which should fix the problem. However, I still feel that the issue of the contents box creating so many blank lines is one that needs to be discussed. --PhantomS 04:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

spouse

i'm, wondering if the 'spouse' field should somehow be expanded. it seems silly to me to ignore 'significant relationships' that have outlasted many of the marriages now documented. --emerson7 | Talk 16:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a proposal and an example visual? --PhantomS 02:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• Unless it's someone who cannot be legally married under the laws where they live, I see no reason to track 'significant relationships'. I don't think the spouse field belongs at all, but not going there today. --*Spark* 12:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

An example of a significant relationship that didn't result in marriage would be Spencer Tracy and Katharine Hepburn. --PhantomS 17:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

a proposal? well i suppose the inclusion of s.o. could be reflected by the field name e.g., 'spouse/so', or simply 'relationships' with a definition and usage for the field on the template talk page. --emerson7 | Talk 20:19, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

i notice the Template:Infobox Politician has exactly the fields i earlier referred to. it seems to me that there's no reason this shouldn't be integrated into the actor infobox. --emerson7 | Talk 05:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Archive

Please don't archive information relevant to an active discussion. I know the page is large but the previous height discussion is relevant to the current one. Once this discussion is complete it can be archived. --*Spark* 21:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Template:Infobox director

Has anyone thought about making a Template:Infobox director?--Ashadeofgrey^Talk 21:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I think an Infobox Film Crew Member or something of that sort would be more useful, since a lot of the fields would be the same between director, producer, editor, etc. --PhantomS 23:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I can't seem to find that template--Ashadeofgrey^Talk 23:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't exist yet. However, in my opinion, it would be a more practical infobox for handling directors, producers, etc.. Unfortunately, I haven't thought of enough fields to make it a useful infobox. The fields I have thought of are bgcolour, name, image, imagesize, caption, crew position, birth date, birth place, death date, death place, and Academy Awards. Without some more specific fields for crew, it seems more practical to expand Infobox actor into a more generic film cast/crew infobox instead. --PhantomS 04:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I also proposed a template for infobox directors on the Biography talk articles. I think it would be a good addition, when the infoboxes for Alfred Hitchcock, Roman Polanski, and Sam Peckinpah are unsatisfying. Fistful of Questions 00:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I support such a infobox. We have Steven Spielberg, Ron Howard, George Lucas, Quentin Tarantino, Yimou Zhang (House of Flying Daggers, Hero), Ang Lee, Ron Howard, Sam Raimi (Spider Man 1, 2, and 3), Bryan Singer (X-men 1&2, Superman Returns, The Usual Suspects), Christopher Nolan (Batman Begins), Tim Burton, Gore Verbinski (Pirates of the Caribbean), M. Night Shyamalan, Rob Reiner, Louis Leterrier (Unleashed, The Transporter, The Incredible Hulk 2008), James Cameron, Steven Soderbergh, John McTiernan (Die Hard movies, The Hunt for Red October), Irvin Kershner (James Bond movies), John Glen (James Bond movies)...anyway, you get the idea. Almost everyone knows these names and they deserve an infobox. --Maniwar (talk) 02:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Before deciding upon the creation of a new director (or crew member) infobox, there should at least be some fields that warrant the new infobox. Any ideas? --PhantomS 03:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

For my suggestion above, I would say Best Director Oscar and if I think of anything else, I'll add it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Maniwar (talk • contribs) 14:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC).

oops, I forgot to sign --Maniwar (talk) 15:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Infobox director should be the same as Infobox actor except with height removed, as a director's height is irrelevent to their work, and Notable roles maybe should be changed to Notable works. And any other changes you see fit.Fistful of Questions 16:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

What was the outcome of this? --Maniwar (talk) 13:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

bgcolour fix

For those who are interested, the original bgcolour setup treated an empty bgcolour the same as bgcolour=transparent, instead of using the default color. The only way it showed the default was if the field was not included altogether. Therefore, a straight copy and paste of the sample shows no default color. The CSS hack that I did shows the default and only overwrites it if the bgcolour field is not empty. Furthermore, it was thoroughly tested in a sandbox. --PhantomS 00:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

All fixed in rev. #97827151 - leaving the field empty, or with white space will result in the default colour, sending "transparent" will result in no colour, sending a hex code will result in that colour. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 00:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. That is certainly a better and cleaner way of doing it. Moved the change down to the awards fields as well. --PhantomS 00:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

notable family members

Considering the existence of acting families, such as the Redgraves, Barrymores, the Fondas, etc., has anyone given any thought to having fields like 'notable parents' or 'notable children'? --PhantomS 21:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

They tend to have templates at the footer, so I think it'd be fine.--Ashadeofgrey^Talk 21:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the point of this. It's not really a basic profile thing. A basic profile tells you in short what a person's dob, height, notable roles, biurth name/place is. A person's famous relatives are generally (if not always) going to be entered into the article itself. To me, that qualifies as "cruft", since that word seems to be thrown about this page a bit.

From the desk of linca^linca 04:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Linca and don't see a need for this. --Maniwar (talk) 15:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Bgcolor again

Should be bgcolor even be a field or should it be silver by default, as I see silver being used in nearly every article. Or should silver only be used for deceased actors, and the default orange color should be used for living actors? In that case, the bg color could be determined by whether or not the "deathdate" field is filled in or not.Fistful of Questions 16:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Academy awards

I propose the expansion of another field: academy award nominations. This gives a better idea of the expanse of the actor's work. James Stewart may have only won one academy award, but he was nominated for several more, and seeing only one academy award in his infobox doesn't give a good idea of his degree of contribution to the academy awards, as often the difference between a nomination and a win is slight. Number of nominations is commonly used in gauging an actor's contributions.Fistful of Questions 16:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the infobox is most effective if fields are used sparingly. If it is overpopulated with a lot of facts and figures it defeats the purpose of being a simple, quick reference tool, even when there is a good and logical reason for adding the field. I agree with what you say, and Stewart is a good example to use, but I think adding nominations for Academy Awards will allow for the entry of nominations in the other key awards such as Emmy and Tony Awards. Some entries such as Meryl Streep or Katharine Hepburn could become unmanageable as more and more information is added. I think we have to do our best with the information we provide and hope that people look at the articles to gain a true picture of the subject - the infobox can never fulfil that role. Rossrs 09:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

IMdB again

Films have it as field. So should actors. I'd add the field myself but I am unfamiliar with the syntax. Fistful of Questions 03:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Why should it? IMDb is an external links, while they might be in some infoboxes they do not belong in an infobox, they belong in an external links section. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 08:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Why not? Films have it, {{Female adult bio}} has it, why not this one as well? Besides Wikipedia, IMDB is probably the most well known site that everyone looks at for actor bio and filmography info. Dismas|^(talk) 08:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that films should have it. I think linking to any commercial site implies some kind of endorsement and while I don't see a big problem with IMDb being listed under "external links", I don't think it should be advertised too prominently, and to me, the infobox is too prominent. Let's at least let people at least look through our articles before giving them a link to take them away from our hard work. It would be a bit like saying "here's a really great article about Angelina Jolie but before you read it you might like to check out her IMDb entry". Rossrs 09:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Um, no, having it in the infobox does not say that at all. Often I want to got IMDb from the wiki article about a person, and I find it annoying to have to scroll down to the bottom of the page and search among the external links to find it. IMDb deserves a spot in the infobox, and its not commercial or endorsing at all. If you are going to have the actor's official homepage, have the IMDb link.Fistful of Questions 15:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

How many websites prominently link to their competitors at the top of their pages? Um, zero? Why should Wikipedia be so helpful in doing this? Just because we are not a commercial site does not mean that we should be helping readers off our pages - we should be trying to attract readers and keep them here. If you have to scroll to the bottom of the page is that causing you a huge inconvenience? IMDb as a commercial site should thank us for the free publicity and endorsement we give it. Wikipedia, on the other hand, as a free site operating under a policy of neutrality, should be a bit careful in the way it selects and promotes commercial sites. Rossrs 20:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but your argument makes no sense. Films link to imdb in their infobox, so should actors, as IMDb is an excellent source. Adult infoboxes also link to imdb.Fistful of Questions 20:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

So far you've suggested two points - 1. it saves you scrolling and 2. we use it in the film articles so it follows that we should also use it in the biographical articles (but two wrongs do not equal a right). Neither is a strong enough reason to add the field. Furthermore, IMDb is not an excellent source for biographical information. Much of it is horribly written and there is no attempt to verify anything as factual. The biographical information is suspect at the very least, and unsubstantiated rubbish at the very worst, and yes, putting the link in the infobox is a huge endorsement. The filmographies are generally excellent though. Rossrs 08:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

IMDb is a user submitted source, often flawed with non-factual, unverifiable information. Please provide more stable reasons rather then it saves you scrolling. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 09:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you're not new to debates, but attacking straw arguments is not the proper format to win. The reason isn't to save scrolling, the reason is because it is more convenient, and imdb is the best source there is for movie materal. Nearly all content on imdb is true, and most information about a person, such as filmographies and trivia, come straight to imdb. Linking to it is not "endorsing a rival site". Encyclopedias are not a competition. The purpose is to help convey information. Fistful of Questions 21:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The infobox is designed to provide a snapshot of the person, with the most important, or most frequently sought information presented in a simple, easy to use manner. If we decide that of all the websites that could possibly be linked to, IMDb is not only the most important site, but is so important we have to provide a link in the infobox, how is that possibly anything but an endorsement? The benefits you mention are minor and they don't outweigh the problems. This encyclopedia is in competition with other sites. Its success depends on people coming to this site and contributing either by editing or by donating. Suggesting to them that they should click on a link and move on to another site, does not help this project one iota. You'll notice that IMDb does not provide free advertising for Wikipedia as naively as we provide it for them. SteveLamacq43's description of IMDb as a "rival site" is completely accurate. We've got external links at the bottom of the page. IMDb is usually listed first. That's more than enough. Rossrs 06:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

IMDB is an excellent database when it comes to films. However, when it comes to actors, excluding filmography, any detail is user submitted without the need for a source and so could be incredibly unreliable. Whilst it is my opinion that little enough is sourced on WP as it is, linking to a rival site even less referenced is just folly. SteveLamacq43 01:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

IMDB does ask for sources when you provide them with biographical info. How well they check those references, I don't know. Dismas|^(talk) 10:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Protect template?

Since a lot of other high-use templates have been fully protected lately, why has this one been spared? --PhantomS 09:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Frankly I think all this "high-risk" protection is a bit silly, semi will do, unless of course us mere users are not trusted any more :-\? thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 09:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)