Template talk:Infobox actor/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

IFTA Awards

Found this template when I noticed the fabulous awards change to the actor infobox. Nice job, Kudret abi! My question is this: we've got the Goya Awards in the template, so how's about Ireland's film and TV awards, the IFTAs? I know there's a generic area at the bottom, but it would be nice for Irish awardwinners' infoboxes to have an IFTA section with its own heading. Since the whole shebang is now collapsible, one more category isn't much of an issue, and it would remain blank for non-Irish actors anyway. --Melty girl 15:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Melty girl, thank you for the praise, but I could not have done it without Rossrs and PC78, so I would like to acknowledge them too. As to your suggestion, if you have read my previous comments, my ultimate goal is to figure out a way to remove all the specific awards fields, leaving only {{{awards}}}, and then have people list everything there by the help of another template to do the formatting. However, this does not seem to be very straightforward, will present some challenges, and consume some time. So based on the current version of the infobox, I think it would be unfair to oppose the inclusion of a major award from Ireland while for instance, having three or four categories from USA. -- Kudret abi 20:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks -- can you add it to the template or assist me in my first edit of that type? Also, I now did see the part about the inner template for award ceremony, and I think that's a great solution, though it does present challenges. I'm curious to see what happens (being a relative newbie). --Melty girl 21:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Melty girl, I added IFTA Awards to the template for you. As you said, the inner template would be a good solution, but I am not sure at this point how to incorporate it into the existing structure. One possibility would be to do as PC78 suggested, and introduce this field as an alternative to the specific fields but then perhaps people would argue why some awards have specific fields and some don't. Also, since you communicated interest in doing edits to this template and asked for assistance, I would suggest that you have a look at Help:Templates, and also Help:Table, which will provide insight into the inner workings of templates and tables. I hope this helps, best wishes, Kudret abi 05:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you and thank you! --Melty girl 05:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

"Occupation" field?

I know there is plenty of discussion above about removing various fields from the infobox, but would anyone object to the addition of an "Occupation" field? I certainly think it would be useful to have this, given that the infobox is used for more than just actors (film directors, producers, etc), and also because many actors aren't just actors. Any thoughts? PC78 13:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I would not have an objection to this field. As you said, it would distinguish between actors, producers, directors, etc. -- Kudret abi 21:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and added it, since I don't anticipate any great controversy over its inclusion. PC78 21:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it could be quite useful, given how much multi-tasking seems to happen with performers, and it's good that you've given a clear description on the template page, and examples that are clearly entertainment-business related. It'll be interesting to see if any non-notable professions get added. Waitress, receptionist, mortuary assistant etc :-) Rossrs 22:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I like the addition very much. Thanks! --Melty girl 22:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Project page outdated for infobox

There is now an outdated version of this infobox template on the main project page. Seems like it should either be updated, or perhaps preferably, it should be replaced with a link to this article so that it can not go out of date again. --Melty girl 16:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, it would be best if you can provide a link to Template:Infobox actor from there. Best, -- Kudret abi 20:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Right--be bold, no? Done. --Melty girl 22:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Awards nominations

Discussion above indicates that nominations should not be included in the Awards section of the infobox. The practice is, however, widespread. One example: Johnny Depp, where it's very carefully set up. The only way I can think of to communicate the intention against nominations' inclusion would be to rename the section "Awards won". Otherwise, I think some of us will be removing nominations from infoboxes, and then others will come by and revert or re-add. Thoughts? --Melty girl 02:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Major revert of article breaking changes introduced by User:Kudret abi

Hello, I applaud the idea with the multiple awards, as I already did the same overriding the original template sometime ago. ;) It also goes a long way in replacing the retarded adult actors box in the long run. However I reverted your change as it breaks hundreds of wiki articles including this one. Here's how it should look like. Notable roles belong on top, right now I'd actually have to completely give up the actors info box in current state and move all the cluttered code in the article.

By the way, the use of mellow yellow and purple could cause eye cancer for an European, ;) but who cares, as long as people cultivate articles like Donkey Punch we should give less than a damn about the American Wikipedia, no? I certainly do, you just messed with the wrong article. :)

It's also better to write occupation(s) as I also did in the past. :) If there's just one you could catch this special case with some effort. Besides in my humble opinion the idea to remove notable roles as being POV is hilarious at best. Harrison Ford is Indiana Jones, Harrison Ford is Han Solo but he's for sure not Jethro the Bus Driver -- just ask the kids ;) Also actors get awards for a specific(!) notable role... be it an Oscar, some obscure independent movie award or even an adult actors award, there is no question about wether this addition is useful or not. Maybe I should rephrase it to with good judgement there should be no question about wether this addition is useful or not -- but then again see above.

If you get enough Wikipedians to vote for a removal of "notable roles" (two code monkeys messing up templates is obviously not enough given they face 500 people who did add "notable roles" to actors biographies in the past... so the majority regards this information as useful, so do I btw) then be sure to change the template in a way it DOES NOT break other wiki articles, if you're not sure it does than DON'T change it... if you do anyway you force me to replace the template on some articles with completely template independent code because it saves me time, as I don't put templates on my watchlist and it's tedious to fix it every two month. Of course I want to encourage you to further improve the template, just not like that. You removed "notable roles" in articles people added it back in, what does that tell you? now you remove it in the template? I do like the idea with the expandable awards list but make it compatible first and do not use it to push your personal agenda hoping there will be somewhat less resistance cause people often don't mess with the templates themselves. I had to come here wondering who the heck broke the LA article again. While there may be room for discussing the "notable roles" thing in general there really is none for breaking articles just for some fancy effect. Add it back in, this time without breaking anything.

thanks for reading, good luck and many more good ideas in the future!

Who's the one pushing and agenda here? (and sign your comments so people know who they're talking to) Many people have expressed concerns over the "notable roles" here, but no valid arguments have been presented for keeping it - "asking the kids" (as you put it) is no substitute for objective criteria. Of course the examples you give for Harrison Ford will be obvious to most, but that's the exception rather than the rule; the reality is that this field is wide open to abuse by users adding their favourite characters from their favourite films. I also don't understand what you mean by the changes "breaking" articles - I checked a number of articles after the changes were made, and all seemed to be OK. PC78 16:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

PC78 took the words right out of my mouth. What is going on here?! The widespread use of the notable roles field is not a valid reason for keeping it. I won't repeat all the arguments against it here (see above!!), but I think they are correct. I must say, I don't understand what you mean by it being "broken." AND it was not just two people who wanted many of these changes (see above!!). YOU'RE just one person -- why did you jump into the mix and change the template without first joining the discussion? I very much liked the new infobox; the process among the editors that developed it was respectful, thoughtful and logical. I think your changes should be abandoned, except "occupation(s)".--Melty girl 16:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello unsigned user, and thank you for your comments. Please see above that the changes as to collapsing the Awards field in the infobox were made after thorough discussions and consensus. At some point there was also a question of whether Notable Roles should completely be removed, or whether it should be kept but made collapsible. If you had participated in the discussion, it would have been possible to voice your opinion on this and initiate more discussion (and it is still not too late). However, just coming out of the blue and dismissively reverting all the changes is not good form and even disrespectful of all of us here who are working to improve this template. As you said, there are thousands of articles using this template, and it is impossible to check all of them. So if you believe that the template brakes something, how about instead of just reverting, leave the links here and we then we can have a look at it and attempt to fix it? Thank you, and take care -- Kudret abi 16:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Having reverted back to the new version of the template, I took a look at Laura Angel to see what the problem was. The only thing "breaking" the article was a weird and non-standard (possibly outdated) use of the infobox, which besides the "Awards" section I have now updated. PC78 16:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I also looked at Laura Angel and the reason for the "breaking" was because the awards were listed without using any awards related field. I added it to the infobox and now it looks fine. Kudret abi 16:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello to you three: pcr78, Melty girl and Kudret abi.

Mirwais just forgot to sign his post off, he did not want to be rude in any way! I fail to see how encouraging someone to improve a template is dismissive? But reverting a revert without even taking a look at what caused the problem first is something I would call hastily and bigheaded.

"I applaud the idea with the multiple awards" "thanks for reading, good luck and many more good ideas in the future!" --mirwais

yeah, really dismissive?

"Hello unsigned user" is dissmive, you just need to click on the history button to see who posted. especially people who seem to spend most of their time at wikipedia should know that. As for the other stuff posted

"the reality is that this field is wide open to abuse by users adding their favourite characters from their favourite films." --pcr78

the reality is that this field is wide open for users to supply useful information. Sooner or later there is a consensus about what roles are the most notable. the reality is also like what Mirwais said above. Most people including me do not know how to change such a template and wonder why suddenly everything is gone!?! You might not know this, but taking the history of the LA article this happend like the fourth time.

"The widespread use of the notable roles field is not a valid reason for keeping it" --Melty girl

Sure, having the personal preference of dicarding what many other users valued isn't either. It seems people really like this kind of useful information. If you want to see not useful information check the adult actors info box and have a good laugh... blood type, weight, hair lenght lol :=)

"I checked a number of articles after the changes were made, and all seemed to be OK" --pcr78

You did not check the LA Article like mirwais told you, instead you posted that there is no problem without checking the obvious one. when you discovered your error you silently fixed it, so that one other poster named Melty girl thought there is no problem.

"removed flag from infobox" --pcr78

and I care because? kindergarten. I guess it's how you deal with failure.

"how about instead of just reverting, leave the links here and we then we can have a look at it and attempt to fix it?"

Yes, that sounds reasonable. I am happy the article got fixed in some way. As for "thorough discussions and consensus" regarding the removal of notable roles. I don't see such a discussion taking place on this page. Just a bunch of very loose related answers not directly dealing with this topic in depth. On the other hand you have two strong keeps now to speak in your language hehe. I see no real arguments against keeping information about noteable roles, no wonder Melty girl has problems repeating all the heavy arguments against it.

I do not know if it is possible but you could make a poll on the start page or something. I really like to read information about what roles certain actors became famous for. it is something like greatest hits for musicans. Whatever you do, always think about who caused the problem to begin with and how the problem was dealt with "There is no problem". I believe it wasn't the article but the changes done to that template.

Now I have to sleep :) thank you all for fixing this, goodnight and bye bye --PartySan CZ 23:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Two responses. 1.) The reason that I didn't repeat all the arguments against notable roles is because they're on this very talk page. I did mean the word "repeat" -- I didn't want to waste space rehashing what's already above. Please read carefully before you respond so inaccurately. 2.) To clarify: my point about widespread use of the "notable roles" field not being a valid reason for keeping it is perfectly sound. If we added a field called "hotness ranking", you can bet every actor's fans would come by and fill it in as "10," then others would come by and reduce it to "2," and so on. But that wouldn't mean that such a field would be appropriate for a Wikipedia infobox, also due to WP:NPOV.

I've witnessed mini-edit wars over "notable roles" in infoboxes, based on people's pet favorite roles versus roles they personally didn't like even though they were award-nominated. The notable roles lists were often an irrelevant, unhelpful, too long rehash of filmographies. It was a waste of time to manage them amid the mini-edit wars and it was a waste of space to put "notable roles" in the infobox, when the articles themselves can do the heavy lifting with more nuance, accuracy and substantiation. --Melty girl 01:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

PartySan CZ, obviously I did check the Laura Angel article once Mirwais drew my attention to it, since I took the time to fix some of the problems with the infobox. Not "silently", as you suggest; if you've read my posts you'll see I mentioned my edit above. I removed the flag simply because there's no reason for it to be there. Please read this page more carefully - there has been plenty of discussion about the Notable Roles field, and many valid reasons have been given for getting rid of it. If you want to keep it, you'll need to present a better argument than "I really like to read information about what roles certain actors became famous for". PC78 02:09, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

If you look back through this discussion page, and also the archived pages, you will see that 'notable roles' has been discussed several times since August 2006, and that rather than anyone acting hastily in removing the field, it has actually been long overdue. The field was added without prior discussion and it has been the subject of comment here and elsewhere, mostly negative, ever since. (You might also look at some other venues such as Wikipedia:Featured article candidates where nominated articles have received objections on the basis that they violate WP:NPOV because of the notable role field.) Although it has not been one continuous discussion, the issue has been discussed over the course of almost a year and the majority of people who chose to comment were opposed to the use of the 'notable roles' field, stating that it violates our policy of WP:NPOV. It's also important to remember that on Wikipedia we do not vote - we discuss. It does not matter if 500, or 1000 or 10000 editors say they want to use 'notable roles' or show their approval for the field by adding it to the infobox. They must show that using the field does not violate the WP:NPOV policy. Nobody has said "identifying and listing notable roles does not constitute a violation of WP:NPOV and here is the reason why". In almost a year nobody has presented a case to support that statement, and it is the only relevant argument to support reinstating the field. We don't work against written policy no matter how many editors would prefer to overlook policies. It is not a case of majority rules. For example, many editors would like to add copyright infringing images to pages because they look good and for no other reason, but we don't because it's against policy. Some editors would like to include original research but we don't, for the same reason. This is no different. Some people would like to say nasty things about celebrities, but we follow WP:BLP and don't allow it. Same thing - we follow policy because policy has Wikipedia's best interests at heart. (I'm not saying we should blindly follow policy just because it exists, but I am saying we should look at why it exists, and if we disagree, we should take it up on the relevant policy talk pages, rather than ignoring it in other areas of Wikipedia) As Melty girl suggested, some editors, probably a lot, might like to include a hotness rating. That also would not be permitted. A small number of editors - or even one - have/has the right (and the obligation) to ensure that policies are followed.

Also, to User:PartySan CZ in reply to two of your comments. 1. "I really like to read information about what roles certain actors became famous for." - that's encouraging. If you read the articles you'll find all the information you need, and there will usually be enough explanation that you'll also know why they became notable. More useful than a list of character names and film titles that don't really mean anything unless you've already heard of them. If you're saying that putting it into the infobox makes it easier to find without reading the article, well that's not a strong enough justification to overlook WP:NPOV. 2. "it is something like greatest hits for musicans" - check Template:Infobox musical artist and Template:Infobox musical artist 2 - neither of them have a "notable songs" or "notable albums" field, and Template:Infobox Album doesn't have a "notable tracks" field. Even if they did, just because something is done a particular way somewhere is, does not make it correct here. Likewise Template:Male adult bio contains fields and information that we would never accept in this template, but that discussion belongs on Template talk:Male adult bio. So, I agree that template is worse than this one has ever been, but that doesn't mean we should be less concerned about making this one right. Rossrs 07:30, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

" I did check the Laura Angel article once Mirwais drew my attention to it, since I took the time to fix some of the problems with the infobox" -PC87

Rehash of timeline

16:24, 3 August 2007 PC78 (There is no problem yadda yadda)

16:25, 3 August 2007 PC78 (Undid revision 148950085 by J mirwais (talk))

16:31, 3 August 2007 PC78 (updated infobox)

16:37, 3 August 2007 Melty girl (what PC78 said "I don't understand what you mean by it being "broken.")

.

.

.

02:09, 4 August 2007 PC78 (Talk | contribs) (112,097 bytes) (I partly fixed the problematic article)

Why play the blank-faced first place?

"I removed the flag simply because there's no reason for it to be there" -PC87

yes, of course. (insert Tony Montana smile here :) Just 2751 flags remaining, GO! GO! GO! :P

"If you want to keep it, you'll need to present a better argument than "I really like to read information about what roles certain actors became famous for." -PC87

Now that we have that out of the way I will give it a try.

Clarity of Thought {about notable roles}

In reply to Rossrs, Melty girl and PC78,

the notion that there were edit wars over certain actors infoboxes is pointless, as there are edit wars over articles probably as long as Wikipedia exists. The principle as I understood it is to always find a general consensus in such cases. The principle is not to stop anyone from starting a "probably controversial" article first place.

the notion that the fiercely fought over "notable roles field" was added without prior discussion is either of little importance given that almost all (that includes the controversial) wikipedia articles themselves are created without prior discussion.

Identifying and listing notable roles does not constitute a violation of WP:NPOV because if there is enough "accuracy and substantiation" in the main article to substantiate why a certain actor became notable with a certain role (success of the movie, awards, quotes etc.) then nothing speaks against putting these certain roles as an excerpt in an infobox for a quick overview.

The principle of WP:NPOV is not violated as these certain roles (think Harrison Ford, Sigourney Weaver etc...) represent a fairly significant unbiased view of what the general public sees as roles of importance and why these persons are regarded as artists rather than what one individual person sees in her/his personal point of view.

The decision wether or not a certain role is "notable" enough to be highlighted in the info box is solely based on wether it can be extracted from the article and it's sources. This decision has to be made on a case by case basis rather than erroneously stating a "notable roles field" violates WP:NPOV per se.

To give you another Captain Obvious example. If I go to the Sigourney Weaver article and add her role as a cookie munching kid in an old advert when she was like 5 years old as THE one notable role of her life, it won't take long people will correct me in this refering to WP:NPOV. Would I add her role as Ripley in Alien as "notable" I would for sure not have violated WP:NPOV.

It is a non-negotiable fact that general public regards certain persons as artists of significance based on certain roles they played. The infobox is a nice way to reflect this.

As an unrelated aside, speaking of navigation inside articles, I personally think it is very useful to link the "role" and the "movie title" as some kind of quickjump to the appropriate passages in longer articles, especially given the movie or fictional character has no article on Wikipedia itself.

czechmated! :P You can leave me a message on my talkpage once you figured how that happend ;) --PartySan CZ 16:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

You seem determined to see some kind of conspiracy with my edits, and I can assure you it's all in your head; please assume good faith, because some of your comments towards me have been a little childish, and I don't know what your problem is.

Thanks for taking the time to put forward your argument, but you haven't adressed the main concern that people have with the "Notable roles", namely the lack of objective criteria for inclusion in the infobox. Common sense alone isn't enough, because what's obvious to one person won't necessarily be obvious to another, and this is where the POV issues arise. Without a guideline for people to follow there is no limit to what can be included, it's all down to the opinions of individual users, and that just won't do. PC78 20:19, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what to respond because I don't find much "clarity" here. You don't seem to respond directly to what others say, and the points you introduce are murky and unsupported. And if you don't understand the difference between how information is presented in the text of the article versus an infobox, I'm not really sure what to tell you. --Melty girl 03:21, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

You have not czechmated, so let's put away the champagne for the time being, but you have given a more detailed response in favour of the "notable roles" field, than I have seen. Even so, you have not addressed the main point, which is how your reasoning applies specifically to the infobox. Your comments and reasoning work fine in dealing with discussion of specific roles within the article. In fact, your views in this regard are supported by WP:NPOV, but you then take that reasoning from the article into the infobox, with no justification stronger than "nothing speaks against putting these certain roles as an excerpt in an infobox for a quick overview". Well, I'll explain what "speaks against" their inclusion in the infobox. The infobox is intended to be a snapshot of factual information for the reader to view in isolation, with nothing in the infobox to link back to the article. All information contained in the infobox is presented as fact, and any reader has the right to expect that the information is factual on face value. A "notable role" is not a fact, but an opinion or a conclusion, and this is not changed simply because the opinion is widely held, strongly supported or "obvious". It's very easy to discuss only the so-called "obvious" cases such as Harrison Ford or Sigourney Weaver without allowing that the majority of actor articles and their subjects, are not so clear. But using Ford as an example : if the infobox records that his notable roles are Han Solo and Indiana Jones, who is saying that these are his notable roles?. The correct answer to the question is "Wikipedia" or perhaps "the last person who edited this article". That's not acceptable. It is not the job of Wikipedia or any of it's editors to interpret data to reach a conclusion and then present the conclusion as a fact. The information can be conveyed in the article similarly to The Beatles example, as described in WP:NPOV, because it can be placed within a wider discussion and context. It can be made clear that the opinion originates from critics/journalists/fans/directors/actors/film historians/the general public - anyone but Wikipedia and its editors. It does not automatically follow that because it can be effectively dealt with in the article, it is equally acceptable in the infobox. Rossrs 08:32, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

PC78 first. A problem? moi? yep, it's sunday and i am running out of chocolate, but that's nothing compared to you who has declared war on all flags ;) I will just sit back, fetch some popcorn and enjoy the show. :P

Okay speaking bluntly, I was a little bitchy about how you answered Mirwais who had fixed the template for me, that you then broke (and later fixed) again. I admit I might have pulled your chain for the tone of speech in your first post. I gave my last post a new heading in favor of a matter-of-fact tone and a caesura. Now everything looks fine again, so lets forget about that and move on. Despite the bitching I am really thankful that you and Kuderet Abi got that worked out and fixed what worked before. ;) About that flag thing, it was me who put it in the box some time ago as I like to decorate stuff.

I see we are now one step further then yesterday, as Rossrs and you realized that a notable roles field does not have to be against WP:NPOV. That's something many posters either did not realize yet or try to challenge.

You say there might be a lack of objective criteria and we might need to break it down in babysteps for our fellow Wikipedians ;) *just teasing*

Well I suggest the following:

1. We re-establish the "notable roles field" as the claim that this field inherently breaks N:POV can no longer be sustained.

2. We start making a guideline and I try to help you with that as good as it is possible with my command of the english language.

I can't help with the latter this month though as I won't spend any time with internet stuff the next few weeks. PC87, do not underestimate your fellow wikipedians! Most actor pages I visited looked quite good concerning the choice of notable roles in the info boxes. Of course this is just my very personal opinion as I am everything but an expert on American movie actors.

Also in the bold text above you find some answers as to where to start finding some objective criteria like success of the movie, awards, nominations, articles etc. , it might not always be as easy as with Christopher Lee, but I think we can dare to trust in sound judgement of those experts working on these articles, after all that's the idea Wikipedia was founded on.

I do think common sense is one - maybe unwritten - core principle of Wikipedia, still a guide with some kind of ruleset and good examples shouldn't hurt. You need to use common sense and some research/sorting out to begin with otherwise a project like Wikipedia would not work. Also you're not alone in this, you might get help.

Unfortunately the framework to identify a notable role can not just be stripped down to simple mnemotechnic sentences like Ariel, César and Oscar steal a golden raspberry of notable size from Granny Emmy in Cannes. Just because so and so got an Oscar nomination doesn't implie it's a noteable role. Such things are just clues. However if you have a bunch of clues covered at the same time in our yet to do guide then there's a pretty good chance you can add the role in question to the notable field given the article is based on reliable sources. That's how I have seen similiar things handled on Wikipedia in the past.

Hey Rossrs, I have not czechmated? :P that was a little joke on my part ;) However there is an element of truth in this analogy. If someone says checkmate to me it can take a loooong time before I wipe the board ;) I also might never play with you again ;))

Let me ask you a question. Is it a fact Harrison Ford is "a notable artist" who played "notable roles" or is it an opinion or a conclusion you drew from somehing. What if I would say something vicious like "Harrison Ford did not play any notable roles and he is not even an artist." Would that matter? hardly. You find the answer to " who is saying that these are his notable roles? " in the much too bold lines of my previous post. Just take a look wether it was a journalist, a fan, a director or a fellow Wikipedian... back? All choices were wrong? Yes, this was covered on a much greater scale in general public featuring objective evidence and significant media coverage based on numerous reliable sources.

The article on Harrison Ford refelects that stating "He is best known for his performances as the tough, wisecracking space pilot Han Solo in the Star Wars film series, and the adventurous archaeologist/action hero in the Indiana Jones film series." These notable roles are a fact no matter how you put it. The article used objective criteria to back that up like box-office hits, sales, an article in the Empire magazine, a Saturn Award for Best Actor (Raiders of the Lost Ark) etc. If we could not substantiate these claims with facts we would have to delete this sentence, luckily we can.

You argued: "if the infobox records that his notable roles are Han Solo and Indiana Jones, who is saying that these are his notable roles?. The correct answer to the question is "Wikipedia" or perhaps "the last person who edited this article". That's not acceptable"

Maybe you now realize you created some circular argument par excellence and drew a wrong conclusion ;)

You also said: "It is not the job of Wikipedia or any of it's editors to interpret data to reach a conclusion and then present the conclusion as a fact. "

Well, this is not the way it works given the notable role is a fact in itself evident from the sources. If you can't backup with sources why a certain role is notable you can't put it in the notable roles field.

You see the people working on the Harrison Ford article did their best to point out a notable role of importance. Highlighting such roles as an excerpt in an infobox for a quick overview can be quite useful.

Of course some might say this particular example is blatantly obvious or whatever as it is part of modern pop-culture, now what if I want to know something about Zarah Leander, Greta Garbo or Hugo Haas. Bang! I have to read the entire article and will probably miss the beginning of a great Lou Scheimer He-Man cartoon ;)

We should also remember that wiki articles are not absolute in any way and often a work in progress. Just because one notable role might be missing in some cases wouldn't break the info box or misinform someone who risks a sketchy view on the box rather then reading the article in depth. Not having any evident, well sourced, notable roles at all in this little box would be a loss for me. The more the less I know about the actor. There will always be actors where this field doesn't make any sense given their filmography - that's why it's optional.

Kind regards --PartySan CZ 19:11, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

PartySan CZ, you still have not addressed the issue of taking discussion of notable roles in the article, where I agree it is acceptable, into the infobox, where I still believe it to be unacceptable. You haven't explained this element at all, and it's the most important point. I disagree with your overall viewpoint and with one comment very strongly : "Rossrs and you realized that a notable roles field does not have to be against WP:NPOV" - this is incorrect and is the exact opposite of what I am saying. Rossrs 22:45, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

PartySan CZ, sorry to say it, but I find your comments unnecessarily long-winded, illogical, off point and self-centered. You misrepresent (misunderstand?) other people's positions, and you fail to support your own satisfactorily. And I don't believe that common sense is part of Wiki policy. --Melty girl 01:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Let me write a few words after some absence from here. PartySan CZ, if you read the discussions above, you might notice that I was also reluctant to remove Notable Roles at first and suggested making it collapsible instead, because I thought it provided some information on the actor, I liked the way it looks and I knew that many people wanted it there. However, facing the strong and sound arguments to the contrary from fellow editors, I am now persuaded that there is no way that it can be kept there. Looking at the infobox now, it consists of entirely factual and objective information. Name, date of birth, children, awards, etc. these are all factual information that cannot be disputed. For instance, if you insert the birth place for an actor, no one can say "No I don't agree that his birth place should be that, it should be this". On the other hand, the word 'notable' is a subjective word, and one must argue why certain roles are more notable than others. Clearly such arguments do not belong in the infobox, but in the main text. The infobox needs to be sort of an ID card, consisting only of major factual information that are not subject to any debate. For the rest we can always use the main text. -- Kudret abi 05:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

In response to Rossrs.

Well, I'm sorry I missunderstood you. My bad. I try to sum up my last post dry-as-dust this time. ;) Which is against the nature of every joke cookie. :P

Since you chose to not answer my question, I will also supply the answers, as I would give them, for this little rundown.

1. You argued: "if the infobox records that his notable roles are Han Solo and Indiana Jones, who is saying that these are his notable roles?. The correct answer to the question is "Wikipedia" or perhaps "the last person who edited this article".

Completely wrong. Please see my post above for detailed information.

Harrison Ford
File:Harrison Ford IJ4.jpg Harrison Ford on the set of Indiana Jones 4

2. You said: "A "notable role" is not a fact, but an opinion or a conclusion"

Wrong, since it can be a fact as you provide sources.

However it can be just an opinion lacking sources. A conclusion is everything including that source 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 = FACT. You make conclusions whenever you start a new wiki all the time.

3. Explain the difference between this:

A FACT -> Harrison Ford's most notable roles to date are Indiana Jones and Han Solo 1 2 3 4

1 source

2 source

3 source

4 source

and that ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------->

How does a fact violate N:POV? once you put it in the box right next to the article. The answer is very easy by the way...

IT DOES NOT. What is a fact outside the box is still a fact inside the box.

4. You said: "you still have not addressed the issue of taking discussion of notable roles in the article, where I agree it is acceptable, into the infobox, where I still believe it to be unacceptable."

The discussion of notable roles STAYS in the article, the info box is merely an extract of the information inside the articles main text.

As for noteable roles being unacceptable in the infobox.

why?

My argument for keeping the notable roles information as a truncated copy in the infobox is actually very easy: IT IS USEFUL. I think the box itself was invented as a visually useful table for extra information around a picture. Even the oral pleadings what belongs in such a box and what does not is completely on trial and not a non-negotiable policy by order of the King :) (at least that's what I think).

Thank you for joining the discussion Kudret abi,

The same question for you: Can a notable role be a fact? If you answer no, or in most cases most likely no then it makes sense to remove it from the box. If you say yes, then we have a problem (nah, not really) ;)

The question for me is, shall we remove this field because it could be disputed in certain cases wether a certain role for an actor is notable and I agree such dicussions should take place inside the article for a reason. As stated above I see it merley as an excerpt of information already in the article. In cases where the article doesn't evidently support it I wouldn't use the notable roles field. Other wikipedians however may, which is when a problem could arrise. Is this problem outweighted by the "usefulness"? In my opinion and maybe in the opinion of many who filled this field with information it is.

Kind regards --PartySan CZ 09:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

A final word from me about the flags - I haven't "declared war on all flags", I just remove them when I see them. Why? Because there is no requirement to use them in this template's documentation, and plenty of reasons above why they shouldn't be used at all. We certainly shouldn't be adding them to articles simply because we "like to decorate stuff". :)

Back to the Notable Roles, and what Rossrs says above is correct - they are opinions rather than facts, no matter how obvious they may seem. To address your suggestions for a guideline:

Awards and nominations How many of these are required? Are all awards equal, or are some to be considered more important than others?

Box office success etc. How successful is a film required to be? In any case, this applies to the film rather than the actor - either it applies to all actors in a film, or you start picking and choosing which actors it does apply to.

Articles, quotes etc. You would need to have an article which specifically discusses the notability of a particular role, and even then it would only be the opinion of whoever wrote it.

All of this is very arbitrary and of little use. You "czechmate" yourself by admitting that "Such things are just clues". What you want to do is put all these things together and draw conclusions from them, but unfortunatly this is original research, which isn't how we do things here, despite what you have said to the contrary.

Finally, you've been using Harrison Ford as an example to support your own position, but if you look at the article there were actually seven notable roles listed in the infobox. I'd like to see you apply your reasoning to some less obvious examples. PC78 14:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what more I can say. We have very different opinions, and I'm sorry if you feel that I haven't answered your questions satisfactorily. I thought I'd said everything I could say on the subject. You seem to have a very strong view on this, but I do disagree with your reasoning. An opinion doesn't become a fact just because a lot of people agree with it... I've said that before though. I'm going to leave it for now, before I start rehashing the same things I've said many times before. Rossrs 15:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

First Rossrs, No worries! I did enjoy the discussion with you and this will be my last post on this too, as I also think we spin circles here, which is never a good sign... actually I now hate the word not(e)able. I never want to write it again ;)

Please don't feel bad or sorry the slightest as I really think I need to jolly you up now being to harsh :/ I hope I can contribute to some less fought over stuff on wikipedia somewhere in the future, maybe something you can actual enjoy rather then argue over - let's see ;)

In response to PC87,

"about the flags... We certainly shouldn't be adding them to articles simply because we "like to decorate stuff". :) "

Well, I obviously didn't wrote that because I couldn't think of a better argument. :) "to declare war on all flags" was just a wordplay which struck me, so I had to use it ;). For me flags are a nice visualization, as commonly used with ID Cards on sport and music events. Yes, the flag is there, and you know what? People like it ;) Well maybe not here on this wikipedia discussion site but in general. Just like the info box itself is nothing more than a visualization help. Good luck with the removal though ;) Wait! You forgot to remove the flag from the Harrison Ford article! how could that happen? ;)

"What you want to do is put all these things together and draw conclusions from them, but unfortunatly this is original research"

Original research is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories.

now let's see what have I written before...

"this was covered on a much greater scale in general public featuring objective evidence and significant media coverage based on numerous reliable sources."

Guidelines as I have suggested (and you called for) are used to define notability for example. Take a look, to get a quick grasp how this is different from original research. In such a guide I wouldn't advise anyone to use any unpublished sources on the contrary. By working together I meant people should help each other to find good sources where is need. If we can then identify and highlight a notable role in the main article as factual information we should be able to include it also in the infobox. That's what I meant by "What is a fact outside the box is still a fact inside the box."

"Finally, you've been using Harrison Ford as an example to support your own position, but if you look at the article there were actually seven notable roles listed in the infobox. I'd like to see you apply your reasoning to some less obvious examples."

I already thought about that before...

1. There will always be actors where this field doesn't make any sense given their filmography - that's why it's optional.

2. The question for me is, shall we remove this field because it could be disputed in certain cases wether a certain role for an actor is notable and I agree such dicussions should take place inside the article for a reason. As stated above I see it merley as an excerpt of information already in the article. In cases where the article doesn't evidently support it I wouldn't use the notable roles field. Other wikipedians however may, which is when a problem could arrise. Is this problem outweighted by the "usefulness"? In my opinion and maybe in the opinion of many who filled this field with information it is.

PC87, as long as we assume notable roles can't be facts your argumentation to remove the field is (partly) sound. However that's exactly where we differ. On the one hand you do not allow me to use facts and guides that define notability as well as notable roles and call it "original research" on the other hand you claim to agree with Rossr, who however, if I got it right this time, agreed with me at least in one point: that a notable role can be included in the main article, based on what I have posted above without violating N:POV. Also Kudret abi currently thinks that "notable roles" can be included in the main wiki article as they get identified, he didn't give any clues as how to do that though. So now we should really focus on the notable roles field. If I am the only voice who states that a notable role can indeed be a fact then you can leave the template in current state until someone notices the error. Maybe I find a big fault in my own argumentation too. Have you czeched yours? ;)

some random stuff for all of you to think about (no need to answer, just stuff I thought about): Who says Harrison Ford is an artist? Who says he is a notable artist? Was it the last wikipedian who edited his wiki? Is it a fact Harrison Ford is "a notable artist" who played "notable roles" or is it an opinion or a conclusion we drew from somehing?

Awards and nominations. How many of these are required? Why do we use awards to define notability on some actors. Are all awards equal, or are some to be considered more important than others? Am I (or my role) notable with just one Award or are more required? How successful is a film required to be? Being a notable artist is not a fact, but an opinion or a conclusion. A "notable role" is not a fact, but an opinion or a conclusion" I stop here before anyone gets dizzy ;)

Kind regards --PartySan CZ 18:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I stand by what I said in my previous post. Original research is also "any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position", which, as I said above, is what you want to do here by interpreting sources to "prove" that a role is notable. Of course, an actor's article can and should discuss significant roles and the impact these roles have had on their career and on popular culture - references can easily be found for this sort of thing. But to then pick out certain roles and label them as "notable" in the infobox, this is something else entirely, and it's not something that can be verified as fact without first having a clear-cut definition of what "notable" is. I was never really calling for any guideline here - I find this whole idea of "Notable roles" to be POV and subjective, and I believe any such guideline will suffer from the same problem, since any criteria will be completely arbitrary.

I'm also going to end this discussion here. I'm sorry we can't see eye to eye on this matter, but there's nothing more for me to say that hasn't been said already. PC78 22:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Before finally bowing out of this disscussion I will try to answer PC87 one more time ;) PC87, "significant media coverage" as stated above (two times ;)) means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. The only research you have to do is finding these sources first place and evaluate wether they are reliable.

I also talked about objective evidence which is information which can be proven by anyone to be true, based on facts that substantiate. That's not POV at all.

Following your reasoning I could also say "I find this whole idea of "notable artists" to be POV and subjective, and I believe any guideline will suffer from the same problem, since any criteria will be completely arbitrary. " yet people made a helpful guide for others and reached a consensus about what makes a "notable artist".

If we can define notability we can also define what is a notable role.

What we can present as evident factual information in the main article, we can also put in the infobox without hesitation.

Sure, you shouldn't put some random roles of an actor inside the infobox based on personal preference. Once you put a role in the infobox that isn't even mentioned in the wiki article you very likely did something wrong or are working on a stub ;) To give people guidance in which direction to look for references one could create a list of clues like awardlists, box office sales, published books, film after market around a character and whatnot. People working on actors biographies already do such an evaluation when writing the main wiki article text. The infobox is not the place where such a discussion takes place, in my opinion it should merely reflect what's already discussed and backed up inside the main article.

The notable roles field inside the infobox can then provide useful inter-Wiki links to other articles, besides giving a quick overview.

As stated numerous times I think "notable roles" can indeed be verified as fact, while you think they can't. I am not sure about Kudret abi's position on this.

Should there ever be a majority following my or another reasoning in favor of keeping the "notable roles" field I'd prefer to also have this field "collapsible" in the same way as the Awards.

On a personal note, PC87, though we had what I would call a bad start in the discussion I think we now have build a pretty decent framework other wikipedians can use to form an opinion about the "notable roles field". So it might be the best for the current debaters to wait for other opinions since we reached kind of a deadlock. Kind regards --PartySan CZ 20:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I actually just popped onto this talk page to see what happened to this field, and apparently it's been a point of contention. I think it's valuable because with many of the lesser known actors, especially television actors, it's sometimes the one of the only pieces of the infobox one can actually fill out. As for larger NPOV issues, sure, they can be an issue, but I think in most cases, people's most notable roles can be discerned. matt91486 08:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Proposal, poll, Main Page

I should like to make the proposal that in cases such as the Template :Infobox actor, where a small number of editors have removed the notable roles field from the Infobox, which is on thousands of articles that a notice should be placed on Wikipedia's Main Page, asking everyone for their views - a poll.

It is totally wrong that the small number of editors who visit this Talk Page should take decisions on articles used by the vast majority of registered editors. There are more than 5 million registered editors on Wikipedia.

If there is a proper poll that approves this change then popular consent can be claimed, if, however, there is no poll then the decision to remove the Notable Roles field will simply be seen as the peremptory action of a small, unrepresentative clique.

Vorrock 14:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

If you want to add something to the main page, then that's something you need to discuss there, not here. In any case, you should also bear in mind that polling is not a substitute for discussion. It would be more helpful if you tried to address the concerns that led to the removal of this field; "I like it" isn't a good enough reason to keep something. I would certainly welcome a wider debate on this issue, though. PC78 14:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Well said, PC78. I must add that it is inaccurate to state that changes to this template affect "articles used by the vast majority of registered editors". Actors and filmmakers are but one corner of the vast Wikipedia universe. Not even all actors and filmmakers use this infobox template -- yesterday, I noticed that there's a different infobox for comedians, and there are perhaps other specialist templates I haven't seen yet. It seems odd to suggest that this relatively small detail be discussed on the main page. Talk pages for specific items are the places to discuss things about those specific items. Perhaps a notice could have been placed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers that changes to this infobox were under consideration, so that those interested could have come over here to join the discussion, but it wasn't a must, and the main page was not the place to discuss this infobox. I think the low level of disagreement registered here about the changes, and the lack of substantive arguments offered in support of the removed elements by those who disagree, reflect the fact that most editors of actor and filmmaker pages either agree with the changes or don't care. Also, while only a few editors worked on the changes, prior comments from many editors reflect the fact that many were dissatisfied with the previous version of the infobox. --Melty girl 20:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

HOLLYWOOD infobox

i have a suggestion. since this template is being used for not only actors, but directors and producers as well, i believe it should be changed to "Infobox hollywood" and the fields should facilitate all the major figure types in the motion-picture industry. I think the "occupation" field is a good start, but it could go much further. --PopeFauveXXIII 04:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

This has already been suggested -- please refer to the section broadening_template_scope above. I share your concerns, but I wouldn't want to rename the template "Hollywood," because it's too America-centric. Additionally, I would want to encompass theater professionals in the (re)name, unless they already have a different infobox. --Melty girl 04:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

As Melty girl stated, this renaming idea had been brought up before. I agree that the infobox is not only for actors but for anyone in the movie industry. I also agree with Melty Girl that "hollywood infobox" would not work as the infobox is not only for people in the USA -- Kudret abi 05:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll agree with the others that "Infobox Hollywood" is unacceptable, but I would support a move to the aforementioned "Infobox film bio". As for widening the scope of this infobox, it's been suggested that both {{Infobox actor voice}} and {{Infobox actor television}} be merged into this one, though I don't know if this proposal has had much discussion yet. PC78 10:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

"Infobox film bio" is still limiting. It would be great to broaden the infobox to include other entertainment related occupations, but this name doesn't allow for theatre professionals per Melty girl's suggestion. An actor is an actor regardless of the medium, so to create an infobox that excludes some actors, doesn't seem exactly right. I'd been thinking maybe a general "entertainment industry professional" (I know that's too wordy) type name might be heading into the right direction, but that creates a new problem of including musicians etc. So, although I dislike my own suggestion, I think that kind of general, non-specific wording is going to work better than something that strictly limits the field, such as "film". This may be more difficult that it appears at first glance. Rossrs 13:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, you can have multiple variables that yelid the same result. So, you could have "entertainment industry professional" as one and the shorthand version could be "ind pro" which is actually a commonly used term in the industry. I disagree with changing the name to hollywood, but I think it does need something to give. --linca^linca 14:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Let's remember that this is only a template and not an article, so it doesn't matter too much what we call it. I don't think any name necessarily makes it inclusive or exclusive, so I'd rather stick with what we've got than make a switch to something equally problematic. PC78 15:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that, if the contentious awards sections were changed, such that the award titles were also data fields, and made more generic, this could be merged into {{Infobox person}}. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 16:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I've commented on that elsewhere. Concensus here has found fields such as "height" and "weight" to be too trivial for inclusion; to merge this infobox into another where all these and more are present would not be an improvement, IMHO. PC78 16:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Then such exclusions should be noted in the template documentation, and/ or on the relevant project page(s). Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 16:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Such exclusions would be difficult to enforce at best. It's my experience that if the field is there, then people will use it regardless. (Or am I being too cynical?) I'm really not sure that a "super" infobox with 100 or more fields is really the way to go; better to keep certain thing seperate. I'd much rather see a merge of {{Infobox actor voice}} and {{Infobox actor television}} into this one. PC78 17:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Why the TR's?

Shouldn't the

! <tr ...

lines in the "awards" section be changed to something like

{{!}}style="text-align:left;" colspan="2"{{!}}

? Isn't that a little cleaner and more consistent? (and portable to other stable MediaWikis) --TedPavlic 18:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it was a result of different people adding rows to the table over the time, some of whom were more comfortable with the wiki style syntax whereas others were more so with the HTML syntax. I agree that it would be cleaner, more consistent and portable the way you suggest it so I don't think anyone would object if you would like to make the change. ( and Go Bucks BTW :) )-- Kudret abi 19:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

what happened to the color?

and how come it's not working anymore? Ospinad 20:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Formatting glitch

{{editprotected}} This edit introduced a formatting glitch to the infobox: the text colspan="2" style=" text-align:center; font-size:100%;" appears next to the image. Can an admin please revert or repair the edit? --Muchness 08:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

A revert to the 20:12 edit on the 23 August is all that is needed. Thanks - X201 08:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I've disabled the editprotected because the person who made the template breaking edit has reverted it. - X201 08:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that. When I added a call to {{image class}} it was fine, but when documenting that template I accidentally added a newline, breaking this template. It should be fine now.--Patrick 09:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it looks fine now. Thanks for the quick fix. --Muchness 09:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

CSS class for placeholder images

Hi Patrick, can you explain what was the purpose of this change? It looks like something to do with placeholders, but I am not totally clear. Thanks, --Kudret abi 02:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Some people may consider the placeholder images as undesired clutter (for themselves, because they know already that users can upload images). The change allows people to specify that these are not displayed to them, see Template:Image class.--Patrick 07:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I see, that sounds good, thanks for the explanation :) --Kudret abi 08:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

width="85px"

{{editprotected}} Will somebody please change the fistful on instances of

width="85px"

to

width="85"

the value of an html width-attribute is in pixels by default, unlike css where the px-suffix is correct. As it is, this is a syntax error. --Jack Merridew 13:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

 Done --ST47Talk·Desk 15:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Birthname

{{editprotected}} Merge Birthname with Born.

Change:
{{!}}-
{{#if:{{{birthname<includeonly>|</includeonly>}}} |
{{!}}width="85"{{!}} '''Birth name'''{{!}}{{!}} {{{birthname}}}
}}
{{!}}-
{{#if:{{{birthdate<includeonly>|</includeonly>}}} {{{birthplace|}}} {{{location|}}} |
{{!}}width="85"{{!}} '''Born''' {{!}}{{!}} {{#if:{{{birthdate<includeonly>|</includeonly>}}}|{{{birthdate}}}<br />}} {{{birthplace<includeonly>|</includeonly>{{{location|}}}}}}
}}

To:
{{!}}-
{{#if:{{{birthname<includeonly>|</includeonly>}}} {{{birthdate|}}} {{{birthplace|}}} {{{location|}}} |
{{!}}width="85"{{!}} '''Born''' {{!}}{{!}} {{#if:{{{{birthname<includeonly>|</includeonly>}}}|{{{birthname}}}}}<br />{{{birthdate<includeonly>|</includeonly>}}}<br />{{{birthplace|{{{location<includeonly>|</includeonly>}}}}}}
}}

Please rv it to the current version if it doesn't work. Wikipedian 13:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

This is a very visible change; has there been discussion about it somewhere? — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

MoS question re capitalization in infobox

Question: should the first occupation be capitalized? I wouldn't think so, and the documentation seems to indicate no, but not too clearly. But other users keep capitalizing it, so I'm not sure. Whatever the answer is, the documentation should probably specify. Thanks --Melty girl 18:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I was the one who wrote that part of the documentation, and having never given the issue any thought I therefore never meant to imply any preference in its wording. Personally I tend to capitalize, but I honestly don't mind one way or another. PC78 22:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Interesting! Hmm... my reasoning is that if there was no space, you wouldn't capitalize, right? "Occupation: actor, director" seems more correct to me than "Occupation: Actor, director." But am I wrong about this? Anyone have definite style rule information about this one? --Melty girl 23:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

awards header colour in infobox comedian

i have changed the colour of the awards fields over in Template:Infobox Comedian from this to this to match that of the infobox header. however, the default font gets drowned in the darker hue. it would be great if someone could lend a hand. --emerson7 | Talk 15:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The titles of the awards are links so they will always appear as the usual link color. I don't think it is a good idea to change the link color in the mainspace since it is quite standard. I would rather change the background to something else. However if you really must do it you could use something like:

<span style="color:White>[[Academy Award]]s</span>

but again I would discourage this in the mainspace. --Kudret abi^Talk 01:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

No earnings fields ?

I would be good to see how much they were earning for their most recent film and their total worth. I propose estimated earnings and estimated career earnings fields. John 15:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. I think earnings info can be worked into the narrative where relevant. Also, this kind of information is only readily available and interesting for superstars, not the average notable actor. And it's something that would need to be changed all the time, which also makes me lean away from adding it to the infobox. --Melty girl 17:06, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

"Nationality" parameter

Can some thought be given to adding a "nationality" parameter to this infobox, in line with other infoboxes such as {{Infobox Person}} and {{Infobox Writer}}? Cheers, Jacklee 11:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Normally that's been dealt with in birthplace, but I take the point that people can change their nationality. Kbthompson 12:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Problem with the Gemini Awards field

I apologize if this has already been discussed before; I don't usually come here. I use the template quite a lot and the Gemini Awards don't show in the box like the rest of them. See for example Torri Higginson and Nicholas Campbell. Could someone kindly fix this, please ? Thank you, have a nice day. Rosenknospe 11:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello ? Is everyone out buying their Halloween costumes ? Rosenknospe 15:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Internet Movie Database link

{{Infobox film}} supports IMDb film profiles using imdb_id parameter. I'd like to see the corresponding name behavior supported here and have implemented imdb_id in {{Infobox actor/sandbox}} with test cases provided for review. The differences are here. – Conrad T. Pino 12:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it will be good idea to support IMDB for actors too. 65.166.51.6 18:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Gemini Awards bug

The documented geminiawards parameter fails with {{Infobox film}} due to spelling errors within the template, spelled as geminiaward without the ending s. – I suggest revising the template to agree with the documentation as demonstrated in {{Infobox actor/sandbox}} with test cases provided for review. The differences are here. – Conrad T. Pino 13:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for taking my concern into account. Have a nice day ! Rosenknospe 09:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Template:Infobox actor/sandbox full copy & paste support

{{Infobox actor/sandbox}} contains conditional logic to support full copy and paste between the {{Infobox actor/sandbox}} and {{Infobox actor}}. Selective {{Infobox actor}} edits to adopt new {{Infobox actor/sandbox}} code are no longer required. – Conrad T. Pino 07:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Edit requested 7-Nov-2007

{{editprotected}} Please copy the entire {{Infobox actor/sandbox}} into {{Infobox actor}} without modification.

The functional changes are:

1. Problem with the Gemini Awards field and Gemini Awards bug fixed.
2. Internet Movie Database link added.
3. Template:Infobox actor/sandbox full copy & paste support added.

Test cases for {{Infobox actor}} and {{Infobox actor/sandbox}} are availabe for review at {{Infobox actor/testcases}}.

Conrad T. Pino 07:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Done.--Patrick 07:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. {{editprotected}} disabled. – Conrad T. Pino 12:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I reverted nr.2, see below.--Patrick (talk) 02:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Parents/children?

Are these sections necessary to this infobox? For starters, "parents" is almost totally pointless (their names are often not even mentioned in the article itself to begin with) and only makes this infobox look more ungainly (see for example Richard Jenkins). "Children" can also stretch on for too long. Neither one of these fields has anything to do with the person's notability as an actor or even to their basic biographical stats. Anyone agree and thinks they should be removed? All Hallow's Wraith 06:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Please see the infobox documentation. Parents and children are only supposed to be included if they are especially notable on their own. It looks like all those fields should be emptied for Richard Jenkins. Misunderstanding this intention is a recurring problem over at Angelina Jolie, where people keep adding her children to the infobox (and often in wikilinks that merely direct back to the Angelina Jolie page). Very annoying. I can't think of anything that can be done to make the correct usage of the parents and children parameters clearer outside of the documentation, but perhaps someone else can. --Melty girl 07:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm - thanks - I'll remove any cases of non-notable children or parents listed if I see them. I guess this isn't the cases for spouses, though? All Hallow's Wraith 07:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Right, at this point, spouses are desired, notable or not. --Melty girl 16:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

{{infobox actor television}}

According to that template's page, there is supposed to be a discussion here about merging it into this template. Anybody? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 12:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth to anybody, I support that merge (and/or redirection) of that template into this one; that template also has less than 250 instances in use. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 13:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• Support (if there is such a discussion) there are few actors that do not cross media. Already this template has most of the television awards preset in it. For the record, diffs between the two should perhaps be listed to see if that will create more problems than it resolves. Kbthompson (talk) 12:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

IMDB link in infobox?

Is it necessary to have an IMDB link in the infobox? It is customary already to have a link to the IMDB in the external links section (and is done so for practically every single actor), so I think it's kind of pointless to (presumably?) have it included twice in an article, especially since it's not even considered a WP:RS in the first place. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 09:30, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep, it is more convenient than going to the bottom and finding it in a list. It is especially useful for the plain facts such as cast, etc., with links.--Patrick (talk) 10:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a huge mistake and not in keeping with Wikipedia's neutral policy. Let's not forget that IMDb is a commercial site and while it's useful to have it in the external links, where it usually appears as one of several links, it is wrong to single it out for special attention by putting it into the infobox. IMDb absolutely do not give Wikipedia the free publicity that we so willingly give it. I think the neutrality of the infobox - which is supposed to give the most important, factual and unbiased information about the subject - is far more important that the very minor inconvenience of having to scroll to the bottom of the page. Rossrs (talk) 11:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Plus there's the fact that the IMDB isn't even considered a reliable source... All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 22:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Exactly - which is what I was thinking when I said about the need for factual and unbiased information. Some of the stuff on IMDb is useful but a lot of it is hilariously bad. Another thing that really bothers me is our willingness to helpfully direct people away from Wikipedia. I hate the notion that the information in the infobox says "Here's a few key facts about (insert name here) but before you read our Wikipedia article, here's an IMDb link. Go and see what they have to say". It's counterproductive, and it's also getting into murky POV territory when we single out one site for endorsement. Rossrs (talk) 22:45, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The change was discussed in Internet Movie Database link above. The imdb_id parameter is optional; it's omission hides all visual effects produced when present. Since templates are optional they're an exceedingly poor standards enforcement mechanism. – Conrad T. Pino (talk) 22:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The fact that it's optional does not make it right. As soon as someone adds it to a particular article, it's no longer optional for that article. Rossrs (talk) 22:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

IMO "right", "wrong" or similar article content value judgements are pointless considerations in the Template namespace because they are optional tools. Please consider:

• Any editor can build an infobox by hand in any article to add an IMDb link.
• Any editor can subst: {{Infobox actor}}, save the article then add an IMDb link to the messy template output.
• Any editor can build {{Infobox actor with IMDb link}}.
• Any editor can build {{Infobox actor without IMDb link}}.

and all of the above are IMO bad ideas in general both lowering quality and increasing labor.

Removing IMDb link support stops only typical editors who are never a problem as they respect consensus and policy.

Real problems arise with sufficiently determined editors (goddesses bless their little black hearts) who become motivated to implement bad ideas because {{Infobox actor}} doesn't have an imdb_id parameter.

This argument reduces to numbers: typical editors stopped versus determined editors running wild. Please provide reliable numbers to sway my opinion.

Sincerely and sufficiently determined (but good hearted), Conrad T. Pino (talk) 23:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're saying. Add an unnecessary field in the template because at least that stops determined editors adding it badly? I don't get it. Value judgements are not pointless - this is exactly the right venue to be discussing them. We should be making value judgements, not just doing things because we can or because it stops other people from corrupting data. There should be a value judgement to support or disallow every field in this template. By your rationale we could also add "eye colour" because we can, and because that will stop determined editors from adding it incorrectly, even though it's a completely useless bit of information. That's if I understand you correctly, but I'm not sure that I do. Rossrs (talk) 00:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I quote in part, "...stops determined editors adding it badly?", yes, give the bad actors a controlled outlet so they don't do worse. I did not say value judgements are pointless everywhere just in the Template namespace which includes here. We agree judgements should be made but differ on where. You understand me correctly, I may support adding "eye color" when requested. Remember this discussion is relevent now only because this template is fully protected otherwise be bold applies subject to it's usual checks.

My key point is policing actors costs but which option costs less?

• Policing every actor in article space?
• Policing every actor in article space plus bad actors in Template space?

But don't be fooled by that construction. The ratio of good actor policing labor versus bad actors policing labor is the data I'm seeking to make my decision. I've raised this argument to avoid making "obviously good" choices resulting in unintended higher overall labor costs. – Conrad T. Pino (talk) 01:59, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that adding a field - any field - to a template should be because the field has value, is essential and relevant, and is unbiased. I absolutely do not support adding a field simply so that renegade editors are easier to control or because policing costs more. I think I do understand what you're saying, and I think it's the worst of all possible reasons for adding a field. Rossrs (talk) 05:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe we understand each other clearly and I've enjoyed the lively debate. Thank you. – I'll restate both arguments in meta form. Yours in meta form is correctness is the higher value. Mine in meta form is pragmatism is the higher value. My meta assertion is sometimes sometimes correctness and pragmatism align and often they don't. IMO misalignment here seems more likely than not; this not a truth assertion; this is an ignorance assertion. I seek evidence supporting correctness yields the lower cost. I've heard, "I absolutely do not support ... because policing costs more." – I respectfully disagree. – Conrad T. Pino (talk) 08:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

That's fine. We don't have to agree, and I'm glad that we can disagree in such a pleasant manner. Rossrs (talk) 08:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Can we all at least agree that we should only have one IMDB link per article? (and then may be it can be agreed that that one link should be in external links rather than the infobox) All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 10:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I can! --Melty girl (talk) 20:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. My disagreement regards its use in the infobox only. As one of several external links I think it's acceptable. Rossrs (talk) 04:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

So, for example, what would I do about a page like Ryan Hurst? It now has two links to the IMDB (in infobox and under external links), and it's a fairly small article about a fairly minor actor. I tried to remove the one from the infobox, but was reverted. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 06:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think it needs to be dealt with here. This venue allows for it to be dealt with for all articles, while removing it from the article of one actor is kind of futile. The person who reverted you has no way of knowing that this is being discussed here, and as far as that editor is concerned, the field exists so there is no reason not to use it. The field is going to be used until it is removed, so I think removing from individual articles is not a good idea. I'm annoyed that the field was added without a consensus or much in the way of discussion, and now we've got a battle to remove it. Typical of the way this template has always been handled though. Rossrs (talk) 08:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Who do we have to battle (if we put it that way), then? It looks like User:Patrick above supports its inclusion in the infobox, though I'm not sure if he supports the result (having two IMDB links in an article). User:ConradPino states in his opening paragraph that the IMDB part is "optional", but once someone adds it to a specific infobox (i.e. Hurst) how to determine whether or not it should or should not stay? All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 09:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

We're beginning to resemble congress in our not being able to decide on anything for sure... surely someone else has an opinion on this subject beyond those who have commented? If I could edit the template I might've been tempted to be Bold. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 10:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I've said it before and I'll say it again, as far as the reliability of IMDb and Wikipedia goes on the coverage of films, IMDb wins hands down almost every time. It's not only broader in coverage, it's also generally more accurate and for this reason, it's not appropriate to discuss its reliability. Furthermore, as a source that is generally more reliable, it would be remiss of Wikipedia to not allow the inclusion of a link to it (it's about 160 measly pixels on a screen). Much of the information used on the Wikipedia film/TV/actor articles is originally sourced from IMDb (it's impossible for me to give you numbers, but I'm certain it's over half, with initial information additions, such as casting decisions, dates of birth etc) providing a guidepost for the editors to work from while they then seek out more difficult to resource, more reliable sources (only a handful of actors have their date of birth or a reasonably comprehensive bio on their web pages. Most of them are interested in setting up a nice picture gallery). The other thing you need to consider is the people who frequent the pages. The majority of people who access wikipedia never edit it, most view the pages, and most of the people who view, say, Hugh Laurie's page are not interested in the reliability of the source. They don't care if it's intrisically true about whether he was in Blackadder or not. They can easily google it and find out, but if we tell them, and give them a link to IMDb which displays pictures of Blackadder and Hugh Laurie in it, they don't have to google. I know an Encyclopedia isn't designed to be providing a simple solution, but it's about providing a resource and information. The link doesn't endorse the information on the page (see our disclaimers, if you don't believe me) but we simply promise that it bears relevance to Hugh Laurie. Its reliability is subject to that of any possible human error, just as Wikipedia is. I vote a strong keep of the option. --lincalinca 11:35, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you have addressed the objections made by those who have objected. Nobody has objected to linking to IMDb - the objection is to linking it in the infobox which is a totally different thing. My main objections relate to the fact that of all the many sites we could possibly link or refer to, we choose IMDb and in doing so endorse it. Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral - it is not supposed to endorse any commercial sites, and regardless of what our disclaimers say, when we pick one site and run with it, that's as strong an endorsement as you're likely to get. (and who is likely to bother reading our disclaimer in the split second before they click the IMDb link?) In the external links where it appears as one of several options, I see no problem. In the infobox where we put a spotlight on it and say 'this is the one' - huge problem. Anyway, why are we so obliging in promoting a commercial site that has never returned the favour? I also think there is a real problem in the way things are dealt with here on a procedural level. Being bold is great, and I think whoever added the field was correct in doing so, but as soon as there are objections to thedegree that exist here, the field should be removed as there is clearly no consensus to retain it. It is just plain wrong that a field can be added so easily behind the "being bold" pretext, but then requires an extensive debate to remove it. Typical of how things operate here and not the first time it's happened with this infobox, but wrong just the same. Rossrs (talk) 11:53, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

No, linking to the site does not endorse it (again, read the disclaimers). It simply indicates that there is relevance to the subject matter at hand. Unless we're using an external link in a reference, which should directly refer or cite the information necessary, an external link may provide an overview or further information not found on the existing page. To list it in the infobox does no differently than listing it in the external links at the bottom of the page, except give it a place to sit. Now, if I have a party and have five chairs and ten people, the five people who have seats are at an advantage over those who don't, in that they garner a degree of prestige, but that doesn't mean that they're any more important, and the other five people who're standing all know this. The reason for this analogy is that just because we give something a place, doesn't mean we consider everything it has to sayis completely accurate, but simply that it warrants being there, just like I'd invite some people to a party who I know won't be great to the party individually, but all together, we can party better because they, among others, are there (sorry if i'm typing poorly, I'm slighty inebriated). --lincalinca 12:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, if we're using the "guests at the dinner table" example, here's another example. I'm the Captain of a ship. There are 2000 passengers and crew on the ship. I choose one person to sit at my table next to me. That person has been singled out as the most important person, because I've given him/her my personal endorsement. Maybe tomorrow I'll choose someone else, but today I'm choosing just this one person and saying "this is the one I'm giving attention to today". Likewise putting IMDb in the infobox. Also, if I came to your place for dinner and you didn't give me a chair, but you gave chairs to five other people? C'mon, how am I going to feel? Less important? You bet. If I had a chair? More important? You bet. Not a very good analogy, I'm afraid, and I now question whether you are a good host or not, but then you were inebriated.  ;-) Rossrs (talk) 02:00, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

But why should it be in the infobox? Especially since most pages that have it in the infobox also have it in the external links, resulting in two IMDB links per page. Surely if it's agreed that we should only have one IMDB link per page (and I dearly hope that it is), that one place would be the external links section? Especially since the IMDB is an external link? Why do we want to link away from Wikipedia so soon into the article? All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 19:20, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed that music album infoboxes tend to link to review sites commonly, and maybe there are other boxes that do the same. But I disagree with this approach. That's what the External links section is for -- and that section is at the bottom, because we're supposed to be engaging readers and giving them good WP content, and then, if at the end of reading the whole article, they want more, THEN they can't click a link to leave WP. Why send them away prematurely, at the top of the article? Also, I feel strongly that the infobox is supposed to contain crucial, indisputable, short information about the subject, not give links to what other sites have to say about the subject. The infobox should be about the subject, period. Name, rank, serial number. Not a gateway to other sites' pages about the subject. Whether or not IMDb is a reliable source is besides the point regarding the infobox. --Melty girl (talk) 21:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Another stalemate, then? All Hallow's Wraith 11:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Not a stalemate. If it was a debate or a discussion (which is actually what it's supposed to be), the "nays" would have it. Rossrs 01:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Are we the "nays"? All Hallow's Wraith 19:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Yay, we say "nay, we will never have an IMDb link in the infobox".  ;-) Rossrs 21:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[Outdent]: IMHO, it doesn't matter that much (ie 40k bytes of dispute). But if imbd is included, doesn't it show a rather filmic centric viewpoint? Why isn't ibbd added also? Or, instead? I seem to remember having this discussion some time ago about awards. The original actor template had a heavy bias to American film and TV awards. There was no facility for stage, or any foreign awards - now there is a considerable flexibility that reflects the actor's range and sphere. No, I think I just convinced myself, imbd should go in the 'external links' and the combination there should reflect the work of the actor, not the media in which they perform. Kbthompson 18:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree, IMDB in ext. links is good enough, no need for the link to be in the infobox. Garion96 (talk) 14:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I removed the IMDB field from the "documentation", but it seems to have remained in the infobox itself, and I think only an administrator can remove it from there. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 02:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I added a link to this discussion (which appears only on pages where the link is used), so that we can hear more opinions.--Patrick (talk) 09:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how this is any different from having the IMBD link for a film in the film infobox and having the link in the external links section for the same film article. Def. keep in the infobox for me. Lugnuts (talk) 10:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Lugnuts, your comment doesn't argue in favour of keeping the field within the infobox, and it doesn't challenge any of the arguments put forth. Just because something is done a particular way somewhere else, is not reason enough to do the same thing here. You're saying if it's right in one place, it's right in another. I could as easily say that if it's wrong in one place it's wrong in another. If there is a reason for keeping the field in the infobox, if it benefits the infobox or the article, or if it significantly advantages the reader, that would be fine, but you haven't said any of that. Rossrs (talk) 10:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

It is very common that some or all of the content of an infobox is also elsewhere on the page. That applies also for this template; so having an extra link to IMDB is fine. In Template:Infobox Film the link already exists since 2004 and is a useful convention. In addition to the convenience by itself, the uniformity of actor pages with film pages in this regard is an extra advantage.--Patrick (talk) 12:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Words such as "convenience" and "useful" are not given any context. All I see is "clickability". Several people have given specific reasons why they believe the field shouldn't be used. If you are going to say it's convenient or useful, could you please at least explain why? I get that it saves scrolling to the bottom of the page. But is there anything else? As for uniformity - if all pages don't have IMDb linked in the infobox, that would also constitute uniformity. I'd also be interested to see someone comment on how the convenience etc outweighs the arguments put forward, because the arguments have been totally ignored. Rossrs (talk) 14:42, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

"It is very common that some or all of the content of an infobox is also elsewhere on the page" - Yes, but why of all the content elsewhere on the page do we pick the IMDB? All the other stuff in the infobox is actually information and unique to the actor themselves, but the IMDB link is not information. There is a very specific section for external links already - and it's at the bottom of the article for a reason - because links are less important than the text itself, and because we only want to link away from Wikipedia if readers have gone over the article and want more - not before they have done so. Also, there is no evidence that there needs to be some kind of "uniformity" with the movie template. That template infact includes external links in the infobox to other sources as well, like AllMovieGuide [1], as well as the language, budget, running time, cast, and so on. Obviously, we are not going to achieve uniformity between the actor template and the film one. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 21:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The link is useful for basic facts, it gives an extensive list of films, each linked to a page about that film, showing actors and characters, etc. Can you give examples showing that these contain lots of errors, or that another site contains the same, but much more complete? If not than "singling out" a site is not a problem, it is quite practical.--Patrick (talk) 15:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

You don't have to sell IMDb to me. I was a fan long before I'd ever heard of Wikipedia. I have absolutely no problem with the site or with us linking to it, and no I can't tell you another one that is more complete or accurate or comprehensive because I don't think one exists. That is not what I am about at all and it is not what I've been saying. My problem is not linking to the site but linking to the site in the infobox which is a totally different thing. "Singling out" a site is a problem. It's a huge problem. It is a question of maintaining the integrity of Wikipedia by not promoting any external commercial site more than is necessary. Putting it into the infobox is well and truly more than is necessary. You and I may agree privately that IMDb is a great site, and maybe it's the best site- who knows? - but Wikipedia must not be making the same declaration and that's exactly what it's doing when it sticks the link in the infobox. Any visitor to Wikipedia who has never heard of IMDb could be forgiven for thinking that we must think it's a great site because we've stuck it in the infobox as the one to refer to. This is an endorsement, and no amount of fine print and disclaimers is going to make it otherwise because the majority of editors are not going to be aware we even have a disclaimer let alone read it. I also have a problem with making it too easy to escort readers off our premises. We are so helpful. Before they even get a chance to read the article that numerous editors have invested countless time in creating, we give them a "Welcome to Wikipedia. But before you read our featured article about XXXX why not check out what IMDb has to say about them." That is illogical. No other website does it. The idea is attract and keep people on our pages, and just because we are non-profit does not mean that our existence does not depend on patronage. We have to be able to confidently assure readers that they'll find whatever they want here - any sites we link to are purely ancillary. The external links section serves a good purpose. Placing it in the infobox is making it primary. You know what also bugs me - we link with naive abandon to IMDb but we can't quote anything from them because it's a copyright problem. So we promote them, happily, gleefully and without a second thought. What do they do for us? Nothing. I'm sorry, but I think these are really important issues and the only retort I've ever seen on any occasion this is discussed is that it's convenient and it's practical. That's just not a good enough reason. We have to be mindful of the fact that while we are editing on Wikipedia, our number one priority has to be - Wikipedia, and if that means people have to do a bit of scrolling or wait until they get to the end of the article before we help them find their way onto a rival site, then I think that is absolutely desirable. Rossrs (talk) 15:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

"The link is useful for basic facts" - Wikipedia is useful for basic facts - in fact, that's the job of the infobox - to actually provide the basic facts - not link to them. The only thing IMDB has that Wikipedia does not is a message board (well, Wiki has a talk page) and a fuller filmography - but neither of those things indicates why a link to that site should be given at the very top of the page. The information IMDB has is the kind of information one may or may not want to get after reading the Wikipedia article and wanting more information. IMDB actor articles are blatanly POV and written by the layman. The message boards contain inflammatory comments. It's a commercial site. Oh, and even more basically, the IMDB can not be used as a reference to cite content on Wikipedia. Surely if we can't even cite a website we wouldn't place a link to it right at the top of the article? All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 21:49, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Which goes back to my point of why have it in the Film infobox too? Someone said it's been there since 2004 in that one. If it's duplicating info, then why have the infobox fullstop? I can find the date of birth of the person in the article and all the other bits and pieces in the infobox too. IMDB is the definitve page when it comes to films and actors. Not Wikipedia, hence why it should link to it. Lugnuts (talk) 17:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, you have not responded to a single point I made. Where did I say one word about duplication? It's not about duplication, and it's not about the quality of IMDb, and two wrongs don't make a right, so whether or not it's used in the film infobox is not a justification for how it is used here. I am really shocked that you'd make a comment about Wikipedia not being a definitive page. It doesn't claim to be yet, but from our point of view it is supposed to be the most important page for people to be reading, otherwise we are all just wasting our time. It is Wikipedia's aim to be the definitive online encyclopedia - but it needs a little more confidence from its editors before that is ever likely to happen. Once again, in case you didn't read my comment - you and I might privately consider IMDb to be a "definitive" site - but Wikipedia should not be saying so. Simple as that. Rossrs (talk) 17:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Rossrs has beautifully put all the arguments against putting IMDb in the infobox, which is supposed to be basic information about the page's subject, not about external sites. And if IMDb is the definitive page for actors, then why are you even bothering to concern yourself with WP actor pages at all? Your argument is that we link to IMDb because we're not as good and should give people an out of WP as quickly as possible?! I don't think that an argument that insults and undermines our project here should be considered, because it is is inherently destructive. --Melty girl (talk) 18:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we shouldn't have it in the film infobox. We can work on that next. Also, I think the IMDB link should be removed from the infobox right now. Regardless of whether or not there is consensus to remove it, there was no strong consensus to add it in the first place, so it should not be in there until it is agreed by a large lot of people that it should be. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 21:49, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I rarely use an external link as exit from Wikipedia, I open it in a new window as a supplement. The discussion confirms that IMDb often has good supplemental info (as opposed to my impression from some comments, that people seemed to claim that it is full of errors). It can also be convenient for editors, even if the info is not reliable enough as formal source.--Patrick (talk) 00:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

IMDB may have supplemental info (just as it has chunks of erroneous info), but a supplement is something that should be placed at the end of an article, not right at the start. The purpose of the infobox is simply to summarize the basic bio details of a particular person. All the arguments I see for keeping the IMDB seem to support only keeping it in the article, but none really say why it should be right at the beginning (and, as a result, it would be in the article twice). All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 01:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Patrick, I don't think anyone has a particular disagreement with it being used as an external link. The arguments against have all been against using it in the infobox. The comments for keeping it haven't really proven that it must be in the infobox and have been more along the lines of it being kept in the article. No problem there. We agree that IMDb serves a useful purpose. I think it's time the field was removed. Patrick, it was added without real discussion, and certainly without consensus. Adding something in line with WP:Bold is fine, and I support that, but once it's been challenged it's another story. Now that several people have expressed genuine concerns against it's use, there is no consensus to keep it. Please remove it and if there is later a consensus to add it, that's fine. Rossrs (talk) 02:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I removed it for now.--Patrick (talk) 02:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Patrick. I don't expect this is the end of it, but it'll be good to have it discussed before it's added. The link that you put in the infobox to this discussion was a really good idea in my opinion, but it didn't attract any additional discussion, so perhaps this will. Rossrs (talk) 08:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

editprotected

{{editprotected}}

Copy {{Infobox actor/sandbox}} to {{Infobox actor}}.

Changes:

1. <includeonly></includeonly> restored. So you don't need the {{Infobox actor/testcases}}
2. NAACP image awards fixed.

Wikipedian 14:51, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

 Done Neil ☎ 10:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Kthx. Wikipedian 13:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

'Especially notable children' needs to go

As the discussion and minor edit conflict at Angelina Jolie has proven, the criteria "especially notable children" for the children field has given rise to blatant violations of the WP:NPOV policy because it requires a judgement call as to what constitutes notability. (Count the hundreds of news stories involving Jolie's adopted and natural children; does that constitute notability or not?) If this same song and dance is being played out elsewhere, then this criteria needs to be removed, or a less NPOV-violating alternative chosen. Or -- and this is my suggestion for a compromise -- only children who have Wikipedia articles are eligible to be listed, since the survival of such articles indicates group consensus that notability is satisfied, thereby avoiding the NPOV issue. 23skidoo (talk) 00:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Nothing has been "proven" at Angelina Jolie: consensus went against including her children in the infobox. Infoboxes are meant to be concise, with only the most important information included, while full detail is in the article itself. If a parent or child has done nothing notable, they should be left out of the infobox, but included in the article. Simply being in the news does not make a person notable by Wikipedia standards. Multiple editors at Angelina Jolie felt that her children have done nothing "especially notable" enough as of yet. As for the suggested "compromise"... Judging notability may be a debatable concept, but doing so does not violate WP:NPOV—if it did, we'd be unable to judge whether subjects merit Wikipedia articles. If it's too POV to say whether or not a child is notable enough for the actor infobox, why isn't it too POV to decide whether that person is notable enough to merit a Wikipedia article? This logic simply falls down. Additionally, I can foresee instances where someone has become notable, yet no one's created an article for the person yet. Using Wikipedia itself as the main measure of notability for Wikipedia seems like very weak, circular reasoning. --Melty girl (talk) 09:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi 23skidoo, I think you have a good point about the "especially" part. On the other hand, I agree with Melty Girl that not every notable person (yet) has a Wikipedia article. So instead of the criteria being that the child "has a Wikipedia article", it could perhaps be something like the child "is eligable for a Wikipedia article", i.e. "meets WP:BIO". --Kudret abi^Talk 23:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing us to WP:BIO, Kudret abi. 23skidoo, I think it's important to take notice of the wording there: "Within Wikipedia, notability is an article inclusion criterion based on encyclopedic suitability. The topic of an article should be notable, or 'worthy of notice'. This concept is distinct from 'fame', 'importance', or 'popularity'." This is why many of us felt that the answer to your question, "Count the hundreds of news stories involving Jolie's adopted and natural children; does that constitute notability or not?" is NO. The Jolie-Pitt kids do not merit mention on their own outside their parents' articles because they're not notable on their own yet; likewise, they're not notable enough for their parents' infoboxes (though they're in the bodies of the articles). I must also note that your proposal and Kudret abi's amendment to it doesn't really change anything about what's already going on here ("especially" notwithstanding); we were initially asked to consider the notability of children before placing them in the actor infobox, and with your proposal, we still would be considering their notability. I don't see a change. --Melty girl (talk) 00:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Melty Girl, you are right, there is no change, I don't think it is necessary to change the inclusion criteria for the children. My suggestion above was regarding making the wording more precise by removing "especially" and then linking to WP:BIO in the corresponding part of the documentation Template:Infobox_actor/doc. --Kudret abi^Talk 00:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I get it! I think that's a great idea. --Melty girl (talk) 04:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to see the field removed but ... how about replacing the wording with "List here any children that meet Wikipedia's notability criteria independently of their parent/s" or something similar. I think the "independently of their parents" bit is important because the notability guideline isn't explicit on this point, and yet if someone tried to start an article on one of the Jolie/Pitt children, it would almost certainly be deleted, with the notability guideline being cited. This way someone like Jane Fonda would be rightfully included in the infobox for Henry Fonda because she achieved notability herself, while Suri Cruise who is famous only for being the offspring of Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes would not qualify. Rossrs (talk) 14:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Perfect. I support this change wholeheartedly. Now does anyone else feel the same way about the parents parameter? As in, "List here any parents that meet Wikipedia's notability criteria independently of their children." --Melty girl (talk) 18:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes I support the same criteria for parents. The internet has many sites that specialize in geneology, but Wikipedia is not one of them. Non notable parents, children can be mentioned in the article if appropriate, but the infobox should only focus on the key points. Rossrs (talk) 09:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I realized that everyone here was agreed on anchoring things in the notability criteria, so I took a stab at it, basing my wording on Rossrs' suggestion. I changed both children and parents, since they both already ask for "notable" people only. I believe that this will satisfy everyone; please take a look at it in context: Template:Infobox_actor/doc#Parameters. --Melty girl (talk) 22:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The wording is good. It makes me wonder though how it will be applied. For example what if a person has one notable parent but the other one was not notable? Would it be wrong to have a field that only identifies one parent and not the other. Back to Jane Fonda - notable father, non-notable mother. Elizabeth Montgomery - same. Larry Hagman - notable mother, non notable father. Actually Larry Hagman is a good example because the field is actually being used. It says "Parents" but then has one name, Mary Martin. It looks odd. I don't know. Rossrs (talk) 09:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

You make a good point. I'm not sure if it's bad to list one parent or not. Actually, sometimes one parent (most often the father) never raised the child, so that's another way only one parent might be listed. And sometimes a step-parent is more like a real parent and might be notable to boot! But anyway, perhaps it's not bad if someone includes a non-notable parent along with a notable one for symmetry... but two non-notable parents are a waste of space. --Melty girl (talk) 04:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Partners

Is the "partners" section really supposed to contain every single "partner" the person has had? For example, is the way Juliette Binoche's infobox looks correct? All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 04:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Whoa. That example seems excessive doesn't it? The problem is how to define "partner". Seems like living with the person should be a requirement (or in lieu of that, a very long commitment) -- it should denote a extra-legal marriage kind of situation, and not be an excuse to list every single lover the subject has had. Still, in some cases, it may be hard to make the distinction. --Melty girl (talk) 04:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it's correct. Wikipedian 04:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Um, did she have a serious partnership with all those men, or is that just a list of her boyfriends? If it's the latter, I think it's inappropriate and not what was intended for that parameter.--Melty girl (talk) 05:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

But then comes the problem of how does one define a "serious partnership"? It is not that easy (especially since there probably isn't a bagful of information about each of those relationships), and hence what I find to be a problem with this field as a whole. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 06:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

It is tricky, but the solution is to err on the side of caution and verifiability. Serious, long-term relationships that aren't sanctioned by law, either because they cannot be or because the couple does not seek the authority of the state to give them permission to commit their lives to each other, should be recorded if legal marriages are recorded. Omitting them not only imposes a POV on subjects who live as family, but fails to be fully encyclopedic. I have already suggested one potential way to document the seriousness of a partnership: shacking up. It's verifiable. I would suggest a second: raising children together (includes adoption). Also verifiable. (There may be additional verifiable factors that others could add to my two.) Therefore, if Binoche and Day-Lewis lived together, even if only for that one year, I'd keep him in the infobox; if not, I'd take him out. Marriages are often short, so why can't partnerships be? --Melty girl (talk) 07:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

But did Binoche live with all of the people listed in that field? Maybe the answer is available out there somewhere, but the "Personal life" section doesn't give too many clues. What you're suggesting may be a good idea, but it sometimes may take a lot of extraneous research. Another idea that I had is to list the current partner only. That would at least make editing an infobox like Binoche's easier to figure out. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 10:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

It's no more extraneous to research than anything else, since everything must be verifiable, not just this. If a partner can't be verified, then it should go -- just like anything else. Articles about actors often mention if they're living with someone or raising a child with someone, just like they often mention legal marriages. There's no need to limit partners to current only. Anything unsourced can be removed, so if the sources in the Binoche article do not reveal a partnership nature of those relationships, they should be removed from the infobox. --Melty girl (talk) 21:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

One new thought about this: I know it's a longer name, but perhaps this parameter should be renamed "domestic partner"? The documentation (which already mentions domestic partnership, btw) could specify that this means living together, not necessarily legal domestic partner status. And I think the presence of "domestic" could go a long way towards dissuading editors who don't read the documentation from adding every single boyfriend and girlfriend to the infobox. "Domestic partner" means someone you're shacking up with. --Melty girl (talk) 22:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

That's a good idea, especially since "Partner" can mean many things (I'm reminded of that scene in American Beauty where Chris Cooper misinterprets "partners" as business partners). All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 23:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, let's see what other people think about it. I don't think it's something that will be contentious, though the length of the parameter will increase. BTW, I must admit, I've never tried to change a template before, but I bet I could figure it out or get assistance. --Melty girl (talk) 00:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you have to be an administrator to change this particular template, although anyone can edit the description form below it. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 01:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I think y'all have hit the nail on the head. The "partner" parameter was added specifically for domestic partners, and it makes sense to say that rather than something that could be interpreted in a variety of ways. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 06:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. SatyrTN is right. I predict that somebody will end up "partnering" Bud Abbott and Lou Costello or Bob Hope and Bing Crosby.  ;-) "Domestic partner" sounds good. Very specific and it should eliminate a lot of the "just dating" or "slept together once" possibilities. Plus the addition of a reliable source - and I think we're on the right track. Rossrs (talk) 09:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The changes have been made. --Melty girl (talk) 03:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Resting place

I've noticed that this has been added into several articles, just when I thought there wasn't another thing that could possibly be added. I must have missed the discussion about it before it was added ;-) Does anyone else feel that this is superfluous to the infobox? Is it likely than many people would consider this one of the most important summarizing points about a person? Also, I've noticed that Bea Benaderet has not only a resting place, but a link to map co-ordinates. I can see that map coordinates might be helpful in the article about the cemetery itself, but unless it links to an aerial photo of Bea's grave, I think it's just one more line of clutter in her infobox and doesn't serve any useful purpose. Rossrs (talk) 16:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. This is a detail for the body of the article. --Melty girl (talk) 22:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, definitely extraneous and needs to go. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 22:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

It may have come in from template:Infobox Person which included these fields as well. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 22:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

IMDB link

I Strongly Object to having removed the IMDB link. Y'all are having this discussion on a particularly out of the way place where most editors don't look, and have decided to remove a parameter from roughly 11,000 articles - about 85% of the ones that use this page. Please replace the imdb_id parameter and bring this up in a wider forum, like RfC perhaps? Or even start at WP:FILM? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 06:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Considering the IMDb link was only added to the infobox template on November 12, are you sure about it being used in the infobox of roughly 11,000 articles? A link was placed in the infobox 3 days ago that linked the IMDb field to this discussion. By your reckoning this link must have appeared in 11,000 article infoboxes - but the response was underwhelming. Surely anybody using this field would have seen it. Regardless the question is about whether it is appropriate to use this field in the infobox, rather than the number of articles in which it's used. Also, the talkpage for a infobox is not a particularly out of the way place for discussion when the point being discussed is specifically the use of that infobox, and even less so when every article that uses that particular field in that particular infobox linked to the discussion on this page. That should have targetted interested editors far more readily than any other forum because the link to discussion was appearing inside the actual template they were editing. They would have seen the link as soon as they saw the infobox or as soon as they added the field, but nobody commented as a result. Discussion is a good idea. There needs to be a consensus before the field is added, and obviously if you feel it should be taken to a wider forum, it might be a good idea if you initiate discussion wherever you feel appropriate. Rossrs (talk) 08:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I've visited and edited an extraordinarily extensive number of actor articles during the past month (this is not an exaggeration) and I can say that only about a dozen had the IMDB link added to their infobox. For example, check out the cast section of the film The Player - there are something like 70 actors of all types listed. Of these, I don't think even one had an IMDB link in the infobox. A bigger problem is the "Notable roles" and "height" fields - although long deleted, probably 15% of actor articles still have them (I've deleted many of the rest). All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 12:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm terribly sorry. I had my bot look over a random sampling of 600+ of the pages using this template (13,360 of them, total). I told it to look for the IMDB link, but neglected to specify within the infobox. While 85% of articles using this Infobox do indeed have links to IMDB, only 1% have a link in the infobox itself. My bad - I take it all back.

I would still expect to see IMDB in the infobox, but that's just my opinion - my strong objection was based on it being removed from a large number of articles, which is not the case. Sorry! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 15:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I'm glad the explanation turned out to be so simple. Just to clarify, nobody has raised any serious issues about using IMDb as an external link. There seems to be a fair amount of agreement that the site is quite useful as ancillary data. It's only within the infobox where it is displayed as primary data, that the disagreements have been raised and a number of reasons have been given. Rossrs (talk) 16:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I read through the above, and I know WP:OTHERSTUFF isn't a valid reason, but... you get the picture :) I personally expect to see the link to IMDB in an actor's infobox. And truthfully, I think the issue should be discussed at WP:RfC or WP:FILM since it affects quite a number of articles, as well as affecting the credibility of WP as a whole. But I'm not feeling engaged in the process enough to stand my ground and/or bring it up as a topic anywhere :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 16:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Admins fix this

Please fix this :- [[Image:‎|220px]]. This is been showing articles which has no images. Thank You.--SkyWalker (talk) 08:04, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Request for disambiguation

{{editprotect}}
Please replace the link to AFI Awards with Australian Film Institute Awards. --Kusunose (talk) 02:32, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Y Done - Nihiltres^{t.l} 03:40, 25 December 2007 (UTC)