Template talk:Infobox actor/Archive 5
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Template:Infobox actor. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
Background colour
The bgcolour line in this infobox seems to do nothing. Or I don't know how to use it. Can this be fixed? Patche99z (talk) 14:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- As far as I know, the "bgcolour" section is useless. Any living actors' infobox is automatically yellow, and any dead ones' is automatically silver. That's why the "bgcolour" section is not included in the template anymore. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 20:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- The "bgcolour" parameter was removed from the template. Some articles may still have it typed in, along with other old parameters like "height," but it's not functional anymore. You can look in the talk archives here for the discussion/decision for more info. --Melty girl (talk) 20:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Religious stance
I think that religious the actor or actresses religous stance should be mentioned in the infobox because this would help make their profile on the encyclopedia more encyclopedic --Hadseys (talk • contribs) 19:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Please no. Let that be something to be only mentioned in the article itself. If necessary. Garion96 (talk) 19:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- I completely agree with Garion96. Infobox should be reserved for only the most important, key points. Very few actors are notable for their religion. In the context of their careers, it is usually incidental. Rossrs (talk) 20:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- I agree strongly with Garion96 and Rossrs: no. --Melty girl (talk) 22:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- I also add a no vote. The item also has the potential to become a hornets nest of POV pushing. What determines an entry in this section? The religion they are born into? The religion they are currently practising? And so on. MarnetteD | Talk 22:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- I agree strongly with Garion96 and Rossrs: no. --Melty girl (talk) 22:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- I completely agree with Garion96. Infobox should be reserved for only the most important, key points. Very few actors are notable for their religion. In the context of their careers, it is usually incidental. Rossrs (talk) 20:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Categories for Awards
What about automatically inserting the article into the award category? For example, if the grammyaward field is present, the infobox automatically adds Category:Grammy Award winners to the article. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 03:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Request for help in fixing an item
Note that this is a discussion that began on the talk page for the film project and has been transfered here to try and get the problem fixed.
This is a request for help in fixing an oddity that I have come across. Please take a look at the infobox for Alison Steadman where you will see this {{{laurenceolivierawards}}} in the spot where the role and performance should be. When you go into edit mode the correct info is there. I am not computer, or wikicommand, savvy enough to know where to go to fix this and I don't know if it is affecting other pages so any help that can be given will be much appreciated and thank you in advance for your time. MarnetteD | Talk 05:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
The answer to your question is that there is no infobox parameter for the Olivier Awards.Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)- I take that back - there is no discussed parameter in the template instructions. But it is there in the template code, so I suspect that the code may contain errors. Perhaps worth asking there? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for your notes GS. I will copy this discussion and put it on the talk page for the template. If there is somewhere else that I should do this please let me know or feel free to copy it there yourself and thanks again. MarnetteD | Talk 05:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- I take that back - there is no discussed parameter in the template instructions. But it is there in the template code, so I suspect that the code may contain errors. Perhaps worth asking there? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Template fix
The template is broken. The line:
I found more problems, working on fixing them now.--Jeanenawhitney (talk) 08:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
{{!}} colspan="2" {{!}} {{{laurenceolivierawards}}}
Needs to be replaced with:
{{!}} colspan="2" {{!}} {{{olivierawards|{{{laurenceolivierawards}}}}}}
That should fix the problem. --Jeanenawhitney (talk) 06:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Fix template error on olivierawards/laurenceolivierawards
{{editprotected}} The following will fix the problem expressed above.
Find this:
{{#if:{{{olivierawards|}}} {{{laurenceolivierawards<includeonly>|</includeonly>}}} |
! colspan="2" style="text-align:center; background-color:{{#if:{{{deathdate|}}}|silver|#ed8}}; color:#000;" {{!}} [[Laurence Olivier Awards]]
{{!}}-
{{!}} colspan="2" {{!}} {{{laurenceolivierawards}}}
{{!}}-
}}
And replace with this:
{{#if:{{{olivierawards|{{{laurenceolivierawards<includeonly>|</includeonly>}}}}}} |
! colspan="2" style="text-align:center; background-color:{{#if:{{{deathdate|}}}|silver|#ed8}}; color:#000;" {{!}} [[Laurence Olivier Awards]]
{{!}}-
{{!}} colspan="2" {{!}} {{{olivierawards|{{{laurenceolivierawards}}}}}}
{{!}}-
}}
--Jeanenawhitney (talk) 08:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- done. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- My thanks to both Jeanenawhitney and CBM for looking into this. I am afraid that we aren't quite done fixing it yet though. If you take a look at Ms Steadmans page now [1] you will see that there are all sorts of template instructions that are showing up along with the awards name. I know that we will track down what needs to get done eventually and thanks for your continued attention in this matter. MarnetteD | Talk 22:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- I have undone my changes from earlier. Repeatedly editing highly used templates is discouraged, so I created Template:Infobox actor/Sandbox with the code of the template. Please use that to write and test the changes, and when it is perfect put up another editprotected request. This is the recommended practice for developing code for highly used templates. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Template fix olivierawards/laurenceolivierawards
{{editprotected}} See my changes at Template:Infobox actor/Sandbox. This finally fixes the olivierawards/laurenceolivierawards bug. You can see it working with Alison Steadman where it was discovered and I substituted Template:Infobox actor/Sandbox to show that it works.
Find this:
{{#if:{{{olivierawards|}}} {{{laurenceolivierawards<includeonly>|</includeonly>}}} |
! colspan="2" style="text-align:center; background-color:{{#if:{{{deathdate|}}}|silver|#ed8}}; color:#000;" {{!}} [[Laurence Olivier Awards]]
{{!}}-
{{!}} colspan="2" {{!}} {{{laurenceolivierawards}}}
{{!}}-
}}
And replace with this:
{{#if:{{{olivierawards|{{{laurenceolivierawards<includeonly>|</includeonly>}}}}}} |
! colspan="2" style="text-align:center; background-color:{{#if:{{{deathdate|}}}|silver|#ed8}}; color:#000;" {{!}} [[Laurence Olivier Awards]]
{{!}}-
{{!}} colspan="2" {{!}} {{{olivierawards|{{{laurenceolivierawards}}}}}}
{{!}}-
}}
Find this:
{{#if:{{{awards<includeonly>|</includeonly>}}} {{{academyawards<includeonly>|</includeonly>}}} {{{afiawards<includeonly>|</includeonly>}}} {{{arielaward<includeonly>|</includeonly>}}} {{{baftaawards<includeonly>|</includeonly>}}} {{{cesarawards<includeonly>|</includeonly>}}} {{{emmyawards<includeonly>|</includeonly>}}} {{{filmfareawards<includeonly>|</includeonly>}}} {{{geminiawards<includeonly>|</includeonly>}}} {{{goldenglobeawards<includeonly>|</includeonly>}}} {{{goldenraspberryawards|}}} {{{goyaawards<includeonly>|</includeonly>}}} {{{grammyawards<includeonly>|</includeonly>}}} {{{olivierawards<includeonly>|</includeonly>}}} {{{iftaawards<includeonly>|</includeonly>}}} {{{imageaward<includeonly>|</includeonly>}}} {{{nationalfilmawards|}}} {{{screenactorguildsawards|{{{sagawards<includeonly>|</includeonly>}}}}}} {{{tonyawards<includeonly>|</includeonly>}}} {{{awards<includeonly>|</includeonly>}}} |
And replace with this:
{{#if:{{{awards<includeonly>|</includeonly>}}} {{{academyawards<includeonly>|</includeonly>}}} {{{afiawards<includeonly>|</includeonly>}}} {{{arielaward<includeonly>|</includeonly>}}} {{{baftaawards<includeonly>|</includeonly>}}} {{{cesarawards<includeonly>|</includeonly>}}} {{{emmyawards<includeonly>|</includeonly>}}} {{{filmfareawards<includeonly>|</includeonly>}}} {{{geminiawards<includeonly>|</includeonly>}}} {{{goldenglobeawards<includeonly>|</includeonly>}}} {{{goldenraspberryawards|}}} {{{goyaawards<includeonly>|</includeonly>}}} {{{grammyawards<includeonly>|</includeonly>}}} {{{olivierawards<includeonly>|</includeonly>}}} {{{laurenceolivierawards<includeonly>|</includeonly>}}} {{iftaawards<includeonly>|</includeonly>}}} {{{imageaward<includeonly>|</includeonly>}}} {{{nationalfilmawards|}}} {{{screenactorguildsawards|{{{sagawards<includeonly>|</includeonly>}}}}}} {{{tonyawards<includeonly>|</includeonly>}}} {{{awards<includeonly>|</includeonly>}}} |
The above adds {{{laurenceolivierawards<includeonly>|</includeonly>}}}
--Jeanenawhitney (talk) 13:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Can I just copy all the code from the sandbox back to this template? I would rather do that, since it reduces the number of errors that occur in editing. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Sure.--Jeanenawhitney (talk) 15:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Copied. This development method is very useful for changes to infoboxes, since it makes it easier to test the changes. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Sure.--Jeanenawhitney (talk) 15:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
This template has got another bug
After fixing the last bug another bug that I was not aware showed up. This bug is a minor bug forcing the awards line to display even though no award parameters are being used.
See Template talk:Infobox actor/Sandbox for what I found. And see the final cleanup at Template:Infobox actor/Sandbox which should cleanup all bugs. Feel free to just copy and paste.
--Jeanenawhitney (talk) 19:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- I copied in the latest version. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
The image seems to be getting enlarged to be bigger than it should be causing it to be pixalated. Peachey88 (Talk Page | Contribs) 10:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- The infobox automatically resizes images to a specific width, but this can be adjusted manually if need be. I've gone ahead and fixed it, but the image is almost certainly eligible for deletion anyway. PC78 (talk) 11:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Protection
{{editprotected}} Just a head up, the main page is protected because of cascading protection on the User:John Reaves/temporary page.
# This page is currently protected from editing because it is transcluded in the following pages, which are protected with the "cascading" option:
- User:John Reaves/temporary
Peachey88 (Talk Page | Contribs) 09:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- What exactly is the issue here? User:John Reaves/temporary is protected because John Reaves protected that page a couple of days ago. This template is always protected. Garion96 (talk) 16:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- Never mind. I fixed it. The result is still the same though. This page is always protected. Garion96 (talk) 16:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Nationality
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Concensus for inclusion of Nationality parameter was not reached after more then two weeks of open disscusion. --pete 17:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Proposal
I think that the nationality parameter should be added to all templates about people. The general Person infobox does have it and there is no reason to omit it in these other templates. Birthplace is not enough in some cases.
{{#if:{{{nationality<includeonly>|</includeonly>}}} | ! Nationality {{!}} {{{nationality}}} {{!}}- }}
Preferably placed under the birthname parameter. -RayLast (talk) 14:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Hold on here we do not have a consensus on adding this. It first should be brought up for discussion first.--pete 15:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Let's get to a consensus then. -RayLast (talk) 15:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Discussion
- This has been brought up before. Nationality if needed should be put into the article not in the infobox. See Nationality primaraly the area that states the following:
The legal sense of nationality, particularly in the English speaking world, may often mean citizenship, although they do not mean the same thing everywhere in the world; for instance, in the UK, citizenship is a branch of nationality which in turn ramifies to include other subcategories (see British nationality law). Citizens have rights to participate in the political life of the state of which they are a citizen, such as by voting or standing for election. Nationals need not immediately have these rights; they may often acquire them in due time.
Nationality can also mean membership in a cultural/historical group related to political or national identity, even if it currently lacks a formal state. This meaning is said by some authorities to cover many groups, including Kurds, Basques, Catalans, the Welsh, Scots, Palestinians, Tamils, and many others.
- putting it in an infobox just makes it more confusing. See Template talk:Infobox actor/archive3#Flags Even though it is about flags it also brings up the nationality point. Also see Template talk:Infobox actor/archive4#"Nationality" parameter. Further consensus is needed before making a change like this. --pete 15:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Putting it in an infobox does not force editors to include a nationality. It gives the option to those who have no doubt about the nationality of the subject. Remember, it's a template. Also, if the nationality can be included in the prose of the article, it means it is defined (by whatever means on whatever country with whichever laws), and could thus also have been included in the infobox. As I said before, the Person infobox does include the parameter and has existed way before these other person derivated infoboxes. I still say it must be included; not only on this infobox template but also on all others that do not include it. Note that a consensus cannot be reached by only two individuals with opposite opinions. I would also like additional Wikipedians to comment/argument on this matter. -RayLast (talk) 19:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Additional wikipedian here. Against. Just more infobox clutter. Garion96 (talk) 20:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Putting it in an infobox does not force editors to include a nationality. It gives the option to those who have no doubt about the nationality of the subject. Remember, it's a template. Also, if the nationality can be included in the prose of the article, it means it is defined (by whatever means on whatever country with whichever laws), and could thus also have been included in the infobox. As I said before, the Person infobox does include the parameter and has existed way before these other person derivated infoboxes. I still say it must be included; not only on this infobox template but also on all others that do not include it. Note that a consensus cannot be reached by only two individuals with opposite opinions. I would also like additional Wikipedians to comment/argument on this matter. -RayLast (talk) 19:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Having these kind of parameters allows for better categorization and indexing as opposed to just including it in the prose of the article. When searching or browsing by categories it would be hard to find a Jewish genius for example. As of now you would only be able to find someone by their birthplace which does not always indicate the subject's nationality. Also, if you check all biographical articles, you will note that the first sentence is always in the following format: Name - dates - nationality - occupation. This obviously indicates the importance of its inclusion in the demographics of any person.~RayLast «Talk!» 21:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with the inclusion of the info in the article, just not the infobox. Garion96 (talk) 21:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- How do you do finds based on infobox parameters? --Melty girl (talk) 21:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- I was wondering that too. I'm against also. The infobox has enough clutter, as Garion said, and as for categorization - that purpose is served by the categories, which are abused anyhow, with a lot of stupid and irrelevant detail such as "Irish Australian" to describe someone who's great-great grandfather was Irish. I don't want to see that kind of level of detail added to the infobox, which should be kept brief and indisputable. I fail to see what useful purpose would be served. Rossrs (talk) 21:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'm fairly neutral on this one. On the one hand, I think it would be useful for someone like Richard E. Grant, who was born in Swaziland but is nevertheless British (also a good example of why flags shouldn't be used in infoboxes, so I shall promptly remove it). But it would be problematic for other articles. Is Rhys Ifans Welsh or British? Probably more trouble than it's really worth. PC78 (talk) 22:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Conditional support as long as it's an option and not a mandate. --Adoniscik (talk) 04:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- There's no way of enforcing a condition such as this. The problem between option and mandate, is that one editor can basically "mandate" if the field is used. So, if someone uses it an article, and another editor disagrees, the response would be that the field exists and therefore is OK to use. In theory, if one editor had the means and the time to go through and exercise their option to add the nationality field into every single actor infobox, nobody could really challenge that if the field had been supported here. Rossrs (talk) 07:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- A disagreeing editor may not be able to challenge the fact of including the nationality when one editor insists in keeping it after it has actually been included, since it is OK to use, but the disagreeing editor has every right to propose the correct nationality and edit accordingly. For debatable cases it can be agreed upon within editors that the nationality not be included in particular cases. For the immense mayority of the cases the nationality can still be clearly identified and still forms an indispensable fact in the identification of the subject. Think about it, the nationality of someone is more related to their person and career than for example an actor's spouses or number of children (which had no problem in being included in the infobox). Tom Cruise is an American actor is a way better description than Tom Cruise is an actor with three children. An infobox is simply a box with factual, short formattable information and nationality seems to fit the bill since it can be expressed with only one, or a couple of words. ~RayLast «Talk!» 14:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- You're absolutely right, but I think I should clarify that the point I was making was in relation to a "conditional" agreement. It's either one or the other. Most of the fields here are optional in their individual use, but I don't think that should be the point of this discussion which I see as : either the field is included or it's not included. Decide that first and then work out the details. I agree with your general opinion though. As for the spouses and children - "which had no problem being in the infobox" - well, all I can say is you missed a long, spirited discussion. I wish you'd been here then! I was against including those fields but I was out-debated, and I still feel that they shouldn't be there. Given the choice between "nationality" and "spouses and children", I think "nationality" is more useful, but I'm more in favour of keeping the infobox simple, and not adding too many fields. It's already too big, in my opinion. ("Burial location" is another one. How many people look up a biographical article with the main objective being to find out where the subject's remains are located? - I think that's way less relevant than "nationality" too.) I think the infobox should be used as a supplement to the lead section, but it's the lead section rather than the infobox that should be summarizing the article. Rossrs (talk) 16:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- Getting off topic a bit, perhaps it's time re-open the debate over some of these other fields? As I recall, "Burial location" was slipped in last year without so much as a word of discussion, and I'd be another to happily see it go. PC78 (talk) 17:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- I would really like to just resolve the nationality parameter issue for now. It is my intention to do this by accentuating its importance by its own merits instead of being compared to other parameters. It is not a stubborn rage. "Too much clutter" is highly relative as it refers to "insignificant" facts. Whether or not other parameters are significant is not my concern for now. What I do want to stress is the fact that I do consider nationality to be highly significant for inclusion, specifically in persons infoboxes. I am also considering, and understand, that if it is included, it does not imply it must be specified in all articles, but allows the specification of this significant parameter. ~RayLast «Talk!» 18:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- I sympathise, but you still haven't addressed the concerns raised above regarding nationality and citizenship. As I kind of mentioned myself, there are certain POV issues when (for example) stating that an actor is English or Welsh rather than British. Comparisons with other fields aren't invalid; several of the existing fields have unresolved issues, and we shouldn't be adding another if it's only going to cause problems. PC78 (talk) 19:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- I don't see why it should cause any problems since the article prose itself would already identify said actor as English, Welsh or British. If there is consensus on placing it in the article there also will be for the infobox. Don't you think? ~RayLast «Talk!» 19:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- Assuming, of course, that there is a concensus for the article. What I'm trying to get at is the confusion over nationality and citizenship as outlined at the start of this discussion. Scotland, for example, is a nation, but not an independent state with its own citizenship. It's one thing to say in the lead of an article that "this person is a Scottish actor", but if you're identifying that persons Nationality in the infobox, then it needs to be clear what is meant by "nationality". To give another example, do we regard Anthony Hopkins as Welsh or British, or, since he also holds US citizenship, American? As I said above, I don't necessarily oppose the inclusion of this field in the infobox (in fact, I've even considered proposing it myself before now), but we do need to be clear on its usage, and we do need to have a concensus. PC78 (talk) 20:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- And if you really want a headache, check out the long-term madness at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies) over how to identify nationality for UK citizens in the lead sentence. Oy vey. --Melty girl (talk) 20:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- Assuming, of course, that there is a concensus for the article. What I'm trying to get at is the confusion over nationality and citizenship as outlined at the start of this discussion. Scotland, for example, is a nation, but not an independent state with its own citizenship. It's one thing to say in the lead of an article that "this person is a Scottish actor", but if you're identifying that persons Nationality in the infobox, then it needs to be clear what is meant by "nationality". To give another example, do we regard Anthony Hopkins as Welsh or British, or, since he also holds US citizenship, American? As I said above, I don't necessarily oppose the inclusion of this field in the infobox (in fact, I've even considered proposing it myself before now), but we do need to be clear on its usage, and we do need to have a concensus. PC78 (talk) 20:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- I don't see why it should cause any problems since the article prose itself would already identify said actor as English, Welsh or British. If there is consensus on placing it in the article there also will be for the infobox. Don't you think? ~RayLast «Talk!» 19:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- I sympathise, but you still haven't addressed the concerns raised above regarding nationality and citizenship. As I kind of mentioned myself, there are certain POV issues when (for example) stating that an actor is English or Welsh rather than British. Comparisons with other fields aren't invalid; several of the existing fields have unresolved issues, and we shouldn't be adding another if it's only going to cause problems. PC78 (talk) 19:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- I would really like to just resolve the nationality parameter issue for now. It is my intention to do this by accentuating its importance by its own merits instead of being compared to other parameters. It is not a stubborn rage. "Too much clutter" is highly relative as it refers to "insignificant" facts. Whether or not other parameters are significant is not my concern for now. What I do want to stress is the fact that I do consider nationality to be highly significant for inclusion, specifically in persons infoboxes. I am also considering, and understand, that if it is included, it does not imply it must be specified in all articles, but allows the specification of this significant parameter. ~RayLast «Talk!» 18:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- Getting off topic a bit, perhaps it's time re-open the debate over some of these other fields? As I recall, "Burial location" was slipped in last year without so much as a word of discussion, and I'd be another to happily see it go. PC78 (talk) 17:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- You're absolutely right, but I think I should clarify that the point I was making was in relation to a "conditional" agreement. It's either one or the other. Most of the fields here are optional in their individual use, but I don't think that should be the point of this discussion which I see as : either the field is included or it's not included. Decide that first and then work out the details. I agree with your general opinion though. As for the spouses and children - "which had no problem being in the infobox" - well, all I can say is you missed a long, spirited discussion. I wish you'd been here then! I was against including those fields but I was out-debated, and I still feel that they shouldn't be there. Given the choice between "nationality" and "spouses and children", I think "nationality" is more useful, but I'm more in favour of keeping the infobox simple, and not adding too many fields. It's already too big, in my opinion. ("Burial location" is another one. How many people look up a biographical article with the main objective being to find out where the subject's remains are located? - I think that's way less relevant than "nationality" too.) I think the infobox should be used as a supplement to the lead section, but it's the lead section rather than the infobox that should be summarizing the article. Rossrs (talk) 16:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- A disagreeing editor may not be able to challenge the fact of including the nationality when one editor insists in keeping it after it has actually been included, since it is OK to use, but the disagreeing editor has every right to propose the correct nationality and edit accordingly. For debatable cases it can be agreed upon within editors that the nationality not be included in particular cases. For the immense mayority of the cases the nationality can still be clearly identified and still forms an indispensable fact in the identification of the subject. Think about it, the nationality of someone is more related to their person and career than for example an actor's spouses or number of children (which had no problem in being included in the infobox). Tom Cruise is an American actor is a way better description than Tom Cruise is an actor with three children. An infobox is simply a box with factual, short formattable information and nationality seems to fit the bill since it can be expressed with only one, or a couple of words. ~RayLast «Talk!» 14:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- There's no way of enforcing a condition such as this. The problem between option and mandate, is that one editor can basically "mandate" if the field is used. So, if someone uses it an article, and another editor disagrees, the response would be that the field exists and therefore is OK to use. In theory, if one editor had the means and the time to go through and exercise their option to add the nationality field into every single actor infobox, nobody could really challenge that if the field had been supported here. Rossrs (talk) 07:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with you 100% plus If we open this up then what about dual citizenship. Or even what about a persons ethnicity? Or what about heritage? I'm struggling with what Ray is trying to do here. I am a white male, born in America, In the State of Illinois, In the town of Berwyn. My blood line is 50% Czech, and the rest Irish, Finish, Cherokee Indian, and who nos what else. I commend Ray with the fact that he is proud of his heritage. But if we allow this then lets add Heritage also in fair respects. --pete 22:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Pete, if you were to write an article about yourself, considering your bloodline and heritage, think about how you would fill in the blank: Pete (born Month Day, Year), is a ___________ Wikipedian. People with mixed bloodlines and diverse heritages still have a nationality. ~RayLast «Talk!» 00:54, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- I realize there is a lot of debate on how to actually identify nationality because of all the previously mentioned and completely valid reasons. On that premise, followed by your claims, it would be easy to conclude that no nationality should be included in the articles whatsoever. However, it is still included in all article opening paragraphs! Why? Because it is undoubtedly an indispensable fact in biographical descriptions. Its usage in articles proliferates and it seems like it has been fairly agreed upon. Note also that we don't usually see something like: "An actor with American citizenship" and their heritage details, if notable, are explained in the article, while the nationality has already been mentioned and agreed upon. The debate should not be about deciding whether nationality is a confusing fact or not or how hard it would be to assign a nationality to a subject. It should be about the sufficient relevance of the fact as to be included in an infobox template. Nationalities are already being assigned to all actors in the articles! Whatever is decided as their nationality in the opening paragraph would be the one in the infobox also; this would not reignite the debate since it would be an exact copy, and I doubt anyone would want to put anything different than what is specified in the article. Side note: I think including the Support, Oppose, and Neutral sections abruptly stops deeper reasoning by debating users, but oh well, a decision must be made, I guess. ~RayLast «Talk!» 23:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, and finally, I don't see any can of worms happening in Template:Infobox Person and it still seems like a decent infobox to me. Maybe you should do something about removing all the nationality clutter over there too then. Cheers! ~RayLast «Talk!» 01:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Support
- Support - Nationality is highly significant and goes hand in hand with name, birthdate and occupation in any biographical demographics. Not "clutter" at all. ~RayLast «Talk!» 00:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support - in comparison to other parameters like lists of spouses or domestic partners, this seems by far more relevant. So why include the other and not this? Not clutter at all. Johann Petrak (talk) 08:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Oppose
- Oppose - Can of worms as per Melty girl, Infobox clutter as per Garion96. Plus my own opinions.--pete 22:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - Reasons given above and there is already an unending edit war over UK/British/Scottish/etc going on when they are mentioned in the opening paragraph. There is no need to reignite it in the infobox. MarnetteD | Talk 22:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose for the reasons given above. It's enough that we have it in the opening line of an article. PC78 (talk) 00:27, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Too much clutter and indeed opening a can of worms. Garion96 (talk) 00:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose potentially opening a can of worms, and adding clutter with little benefit. Would be redundant in many cases in which the country of birth = country of nationality. Rossrs (talk) 05:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose, though I don't know why this consensus process had to be so formalized. --Melty girl (talk) 17:53, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Neutral
Proposal to remove some parameters
See the discussion in the section above. How about removing the parameters restingplace and restingplacecoordinates. Some other ones which I don't really care for are "influences" and "influenced". They can be much better explained (and sourced) in the article itself. Plus it could be an endless list. Look how many influenced Stella Adler could theoretically have in her infobox. Garion96 (talk) 14:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- Agree with all of the above. Resting place and coordiantes are of little significance, while Influences are something that require proper discussion (and referencing) within the main article. PC78 (talk) 14:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- Agree with Garion and PC78 - resting place and coordinates are not important in understanding the subject of the article. Influenced and influences are also too vague to use properly in a list format. Within the article they can be discussed and given context. Stella Adler is a great example of a potentially long list, and culling that list would introduce POV into the infobox - something that should be exclusively for provable, relevant facts. I also would remove spouse, children and parents as being trivial and of little relevance in most cases. See Burt Lancaster and especially Marie McDonald for lists of spouses, 10 between them, none of whom are notable enough for their own articles. So we know their names, and in the infobox, that's all we do know. Seems like listing information for the sake of listing information, to me. Once again, the article is the right place to discuss these people. Rossrs (talk) 15:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- Well, I'm far less concerned with the spouse/children/parents fields (which are fine in articles like Angelina Jolie) as I am with the awards section, which still has massive problems that were never properly addressed. But I don't think it would be too constructive to turn this into a discussion about the infobox as a whole. Let's just focus on a few things at a time. PC78 (talk) 15:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- Let's start with one thing at a time, then: I agree that various influences can be much better described in the actual article, so does anyone disagree with the removal of the "influences" and "influenced" parameters? If not, I'll boldly go ahead and remove them. --Conti|✉ 15:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- It seems to be used in relatively few articles so I think it would be appropriate to remove it. That may be the only way of finding out whether anyone supports its use. Rossrs (talk) 20:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- Let's start with one thing at a time, then: I agree that various influences can be much better described in the actual article, so does anyone disagree with the removal of the "influences" and "influenced" parameters? If not, I'll boldly go ahead and remove them. --Conti|✉ 15:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- Well, I'm far less concerned with the spouse/children/parents fields (which are fine in articles like Angelina Jolie) as I am with the awards section, which still has massive problems that were never properly addressed. But I don't think it would be too constructive to turn this into a discussion about the infobox as a whole. Let's just focus on a few things at a time. PC78 (talk) 15:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Ok, these two are gone (for now). Now how about the resting place parameters? Garion96 (talk) 22:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- Kill 'em. PC78 (talk) 23:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- Good one PC78. I say remove them also. The Find-a-Grave website that is added as an external link to several bios more than suffices. MarnetteD | Talk 00:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- hold on there....i say bring 'em back!!! ...just kidding, junk 'em all. --emerson7 04:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- They are gone as well. Garion96 (talk) 18:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- hold on there....i say bring 'em back!!! ...just kidding, junk 'em all. --emerson7 04:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- Good one PC78. I say remove them also. The Find-a-Grave website that is added as an external link to several bios more than suffices. MarnetteD | Talk 00:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Proposed change to "Website" field
{{editprotected}}
I was wondering how people felt about changing this field to the same format used in other templates like {{Infobox Model}} and {{Infobox Film}} (examples: Heidi Klum, Cloverfield)? This would require changing the following lines:
{{#if:{{{website<includeonly>|</includeonly>{{{homepage|}}}}}} |
! Official site
{{!}} {{{website<includeonly>|</includeonly>{{{homepage|}}}}}}
{{!}}-
}}
to this:
{{#if:{{{website<includeonly>|</includeonly>{{{homepage|}}}}}} |
! style="font-size: 100%;" align="center" colspan="2" {{!}} '''[{{{website<includeonly>|</includeonly>{{{homepage|}}}}}} Official website]''' [[Category:Infobox Actor maintenance]]
{{!}}-
}}
Current | |
|---|---|
| Website | Official website |
User:PC78/Sandbox6 This would mean that the user only has to insert the plain URL in the field rather than a hyperlink, and it would offer standardization across all articles. Often I find myself wanting to hyperlink the URL as "Official website", which just looks plain stupid. The proposed change would simplify things and make the infobox look neater.
The only real propblem would be how to implement the change. I suspect a lot of articles already use this field, and they would probably have to be edited manually to update them to the new format. I was going to suggest introducing a new homepage field so that the old website field could be gradually phased out, but unfortunately the infobox already accepts homepage as an alternative to website. Perhaps a bot could assist in making the change, unless people feel that this would be too much effort for minimal gain?
Thoughts? PC78 (talk) 20:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- Looks good. If any help is needed updating boxes in specific articles please let me know and I will be glad to do what I can. MarnetteD | Talk 16:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- Looks much tidier, and I'll also help update boxes in specific articles if necessary. Rossrs (talk) 20:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Looks like we're all in agreement then! :) I think we should throw caution to the wind and just update the existing parameter, even though it might break some articles in the short term. I've added a category to the code so that the updated template will automatically categorize any articles which use this field. This should make it a simple task of going down the list and fixing what's broken. The category can then be removed and deleted once the job is done. I'll make a formal request to edit the template later, unless anyone has any further comments. PC78 (talk) 19:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Done I hope you like the change. I have created the hidden Category:Infobox Actor templates with websites - wait for the articles to work their way through the job queue, then go through the list and make sure that all the websites are correctly formatted. Once you've finished with the update, {{editprotected}}the code from the infobox, and WP:CSD#G6 or WP:CSD#C3 the category. Good luck! Happy‑melon 17:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
{{editprotected}}
- It should be above the "Awards". I know it's in collapsed state but when ya click "Show" n' if the awards is too long, ya have to scroll down before ya can see it, IMO. Wikipedian 02:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
{{editprotected}}
Per discussion above, remove the category (which has been tagged for deletion) from the end of this line:
{{!}} '''[{{{website<includeonly>|</includeonly>{{{homepage|}}}}}} Official website]''' [[Category:Infobox Actor templates with websites]]
All articles have now been checked and updated. (Phew!) PC78 (talk) 11:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Merge "Birth name" with "Born"
Thoughts? Wikipedian 12:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- In what way? "Born" already consists of two parameters (birthdate & birthplace). PC78 (talk) 15:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- In this way. Wikipedian 13:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- I like the idea of reducing unnecessary characters, and this would make it look less "busy". I think it looks good. Rossrs (talk) 13:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Yes it looks good, but if Wikipedian's code is used it will look really messed up when birthname is not used or even when birthdate is also not used. Needs more work before it can be changed.
- I like the idea of reducing unnecessary characters, and this would make it look less "busy". I think it looks good. Rossrs (talk) 13:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- In this way. Wikipedian 13:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
User:PC78/Sandbox6 User:PC78/Sandbox6 --pete 17:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Fixed. PC78 (talk) 18:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- I support. I've liked how other infoboxes have done the same. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 18:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
{{editprotected}}
Change:
{{#if:{{{birthname<includeonly>|</includeonly>}}} |
! width="85" {{!}} Birth name
{{!}} {{{birthname}}}
{{!}}-
}}
{{#if:{{{birthdate<includeonly>|</includeonly>}}} {{{birthplace|}}} {{{location<includeonly>|</includeonly>}}} |
! Born
{{!}} {{#if:{{{birthdate<includeonly>|</includeonly>}}}|{{{birthdate}}}<br />}} {{{location|{{{birthplace<includeonly>|</includeonly>}}}}}}
{{!}}-
}}
to:
{{#if:{{{birthname<includeonly>|</includeonly>}}} {{{birthdate<includeonly>|</includeonly>}}} {{{birthplace<includeonly>|</includeonly>}}} {{{location<includeonly>|</includeonly>}}} |
! Born
{{!}} {{#if:{{{birthname<includeonly>|</includeonly>}}}|{{{birthname}}}<br />}} {{#if:{{{birthdate<includeonly>|</includeonly>}}}|{{{birthdate}}}<br />}} {{{location|{{{birthplace<includeonly>|</includeonly>}}}}}}
{{!}}-
}}
PC78 (talk) 13:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Notability of parents and children
| This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
What is the rationale behind the requirement that parents and children have to be notable while spouses and domestic partners do not? If information about number and names of children is an interesting fact, notability should not be relevant. Especially when only some children are listed (the notable ones) this might give the wrong impression that the persons listed are the only children. Johann Petrak (talk) 08:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
If I had to make a choice between all children or no children in the infobox (not in the prose), I would choose to remove the field entirely. The article's prose is what's most important and what should get the most space. An infobox should be a very quick way to get the most basic stats about a person, and actors and filmmakers are not notable for their family -- they're notable for their career. Their occupation, age, major awards won, years active, etc. are the kinds of simple, important things to present. So if we're going down a path of adding all children to the field, then I say remove the field. Information in an infobox should be of paramount important to the knowledge of the biography in question; if a child isn't notable, then why clutter up the box? The whole kitchen sink shouldn't be in there. So either keep it as consensus has been, with only children who are notable on their own (see the archives, KellyAna), or get rid of the field.--Melty girl (talk) 06:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Remove the parameterThis is not about excluding information, since children are mentioned in the article itself. It is about whether it's important enough to be mentioned in the infobox. From looking at this discussion, there seems to be a growing consensus to remove the children parameter all together. Garion96 (talk) 21:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
|