Template talk:Infobox writer/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Please make active the following fields

The following two fields that appear in infobox person make it possible to indicate that a writer was, for instance, employed at The New Yorker, etc. and that s/he is known for pulled publications (recalls) or other issues (i.e., important events that cannot be covered by "notable works"). At your earliest convenience, thank you. | employer = | known_for = With regard, Le Prof. Leprof 7272 (talk) 15:07, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. — JJMC89 (T·C) 17:42, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

This change seems well-argued, justified, uncontroversial and I 'support it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:52, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

It's not obvious to me that this would, necessarily, be a good addition. Fields of a specialized infobox should be related to the view of the individual as a member of the specialized group. Are these fields related to an individual's identity as a writer? They seem suspiciously like field bloat. Generic infoboxen such as person are plagued by unavoidable field bloat because they lack focus; getting away from that mess is one of the benefits of more specialized ones. Are there a number of specific examples illustrating the demand for these fields? Also, even if there is a real need to be filled, the name "known_for" seems likely to cause content bloat because it begs to be filled in without offering clear guidance for what to put there. --Pi zero (talk) 15:38, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Infobox writer embedded in Infobox person
Employer	The New Yorker
Known for	Yodelling
Writing career
Notable works	ABC of Wikipedia

@Leprof 7272: You can now achieve this by embedding the template in {{Infobox person}}, as shown here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:56, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Net worth parameter

I suggest that the parameter net_worth be added to this template. It should be similar to the parameters in Template:Infobox person.--130.65.109.103 (talk) 16:21, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

In what way would such a parameter be useful to include in an infobox summarizing the character of an individual person as a writer? --Pi zero (talk) 18:03, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, the most notable writers, such as, say, J. K. Rowling became very wealthy due to their book sales. They were popular. Their wrote their books, copyrighted them, published them and sold those book for profit. Why do report the number to indicate such?--130.65.109.103 (talk) 18:17, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't see that net worth can even be defined for someone, since it may have varied during their lifetime, and I don't see that it's significant to their character as a writer. Some notable writers made a lot of money? Well, likely some notable writers didn't make a lot of money, and some made a lot and then lost it; some people even make and lose fortunes multiple times in their lives. Like I said, it seems an ambiguous thing to try to fill out, and doesn't seem to be fundamentally informative about them as a writer. --Pi zero (talk) 00:58, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Infobox writer embedded in Infobox person
Writing career
Notable works	ABC of Wikipedia

You can now achieve this by embedding the template in {{Infobox person}}, as shown here. Be sure that the figure is cited on the body of the article. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:58, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 8 February 2017

I added "image_upright" in the sandbox. I'm planning to use it in some articles, like Jane Austen. George Ho (talk) 09:18, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

 Done — xaosflux ^Talk 13:12, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Proposed cause_of_death field

I think this field would be useful. Voxfax (talk) 07:59, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

No thank you. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:18, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

No thank you, from me also. It's not part of the essential information one wants in a quick overview of someone as a writer. --Pi zero (talk) 00:16, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Ethnicity in officeholder infoboxes

Hi @Fram: please help "Ethnicity" parameter has been removed from the infobox writer, then how come in the article Rabindranath Tagore or Kazi Nazrul Islam "Ethnicity" is showing in the infobox, I'm confused.--Anandmoorti (talk) 05:51, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

It has been removed from the documentation[1] but not from the actual template. I'll remove it now. Fram (talk) 06:36, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Alright.--Anandmoorti (talk) 12:06, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Add residence field

I propose adding the ‘residence’ field that is included in Template:Infobox_person to indicate where a person notably resides if different than birthplace. We currently include a number of fields regarding the writer’s location (birth place, resting place, death place), and also fields for nationality and citizenship, but no field that would indicate where the writer currently lives. Especially for living immigrant or expat writers, this is useful and key information (for dead writers, can usually be inferred from death_place field). I searched the archives of this talk page for the terms ‘location’ and ‘residence’ and below are all the discussions that I found that touch on the subject, along with my annotations in italics:

1. Template_talk:Infobox_writer/Archive_4#Citizenship.2C_ethnicity.2C_and_nationality This is a long discussion of citizenship, ethnicity and nationality fields. During the discussion, one editor proposed residence field, and there was no further discussion on that point.
2. Template_talk:Infobox_writer/Archive_6#Nation_of_resdience Editor proposed ‘nation of residence’ field. There was no further discussion.
3. Template_talk:Infobox_writer/Archive_7#Citizenship.2C_Ethnicity_and_Nationality Editor suggested ‘nation of residence’ field during a separate discussion, and there was no further discussion on that point.
4. Template_talk:Infobox_writer/Archive_9#Residence @Mika1h: suggested residence field be added. Only response was @Pi zero: commented: “On a quick search, there are apparently some discussions in the archives of this talk page about "residence", or "nation of residence", in relation to "nationality". The arrangement of those fields is something that's evidently been struggled with. If we were going to tinker with that part of the infobox design, it would be worthwhile to investigate in more depth the history of discussions of the nationality, citizenship, and ethnicity fields.”

In all four instances an editor suggested a residence field be added, and in no instances does an editor argue against the change. In three instances there was no further discussion, and in one instance Pi zero suggested further research, which I’ve attempted to do here. Regarding the discussion #4, that we research the history of nationality, citizenship and ethnicity fields for this infobox, I didn't find discussion regarding how these relate to residence other than passing discussion of overlap between nationality and residence. But, I think nationality usually has a different meaning than residence. A person can identify as a Serbian (their nationality), be born and raised in Russia, and live and write in the United States, for example, and all three could be notable, infobox worthy, facts. Or, it could be unclear what nationality a writer identifies with (their homeland, their ethnicity, or their adopted country), but their place of residence is usually clear.

Dejan Stojanović is an example where this would be useful - the article includes where he lives, which is different than his nationality, but no way to include in the Infobox. That this author lives in the States is very notable, which is what inspired this post. 2604:6000:7B0E:8C00:A15A:2359:D8FD:8420 (talk) 03:55, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

The problem is that adding a residence field would act as a challenge for people who like to spend time adjusting infoboxes. However, it would be very rare for the residence of a writer to be of more than gossip interest. Why not mention the name of the person they lasted dated? Or the name of their dog? I have not encountered Dejan Stojanović and seeing the location of his residence in the infobox would tell me precisely nothing. Anything significant about it would have to be in prose, in the article. Johnuniq (talk) 04:20, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

One difference between adding pets or dating history, vs. my request to add residence, is that I'm the fifth editor to make this suggestion as I documented above. And, if we do include, it doesn't mean that trivial residence info will be include in every bio infobox - rather, editors will have an option to include or not include whether residence is notable, depending on the context of a particular bio, and we can include explicit instruction only to include if notable and if different than birth country.

For another example, see Salmon Rushdie, born in Iran, citizen of UK, and living in US for last 17 years.2604:6000:7B0E:8C00:B91F:4407:3AF6:3B15 (talk) 05:15, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: I'm the OP. I want to push this to an efficient conclusion. If you're strongly opposed, I'll let the proposal drop. I think this is particularly relevant to living expat authors, but you can probably better judge the hassle vs. benefit of changing an infobox. Otherwise, would a WP:3O request be OK, or would you prefer a different process?45.46.153.12 (talk) 03:50, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

There does not seem to be much support. You might try the talk page of an article that would be affected and see if anyone thinks it would be useful. I haven't looked lately, but my guess is that WP:3O is more for disputes over article content. Changing an infobox is somewhat different. Johnuniq (talk) 04:49, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

|residence= exists uncontroversially in {{Infobox person}}, is already used in 250 transclusions of this template, and appears to have more support than objections (though both are not passionate). I have added the parameter to this template. Let's see if it causes actual trouble in actual articles. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:20, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Convert to wrapper

I would like to suggest to make it a wrapper of {{Infobox person}} -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 21:13, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Similar proposals are at:

• Template talk:Infobox musical artist#Convert to wrapper
• Template talk:Infobox scientist#Convert to wrapper
• Template talk:Infobox writer#Convert to wrapper

Infoboxes involve difficult issues and it would be better to deal with one at a time. Please pick one of them and put the others on hold. If a change is agreed, the change should occur and be fully tested before working on others. Johnuniq (talk) 23:07, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

RFC

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.

---

Template talk:Infobox scientist#Convert to wrapper have been closed and decision was convert. Now I have created sandbox version of this template and also the testcases. Hence, proposing to convert this as well. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 18:35, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

• I think here the original ordering of the display and treatment of works makes sense in the standalone template. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:05, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
• Do it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:44, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
• (Summoned by bot) Sure. L3X1 (distænt write) 18:32, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
• Seems uncontroversial. Maproom (talk) 07:57, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. (Summoned by bot) Keep as separate, because the current fork as {infobox_writer} allows for special ordering of new data fields. In general, taking infobox forks and switching them all to a funnel of {infobox_person} will hamper innovation and trigger massive reformatting of pages to alter the layout. Plus the wrapper adds new levels of errors, such as the option "misc=" being misspelled in the wrapper as "mics=" (as of 16Sep2017). Instead, keep separate and consider new data-fields, such as image2 +caption2 to show writer at another conference or add custom top/mid/end blank fields: top-label1, top-data1, mid-label1, mid-data1, end-label1 (etc.) to provide custom blank data parameters, to appear at either the top, middle, or bottom of the infobox. Beware funneling forks into "one-size-fails-all" wrappers which would drastically hinder innovation of infobox layout. Major design flaw, so oppose wrapper. -Wikid77 (talk) 08:53, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support. I'll just repeat what I said in the other thread: Its a maintenance butt-pain to try to re-re-re-implement the same features over and over again on a wide profusion of redundant templates, and the result is rarely consistent parameters anyway (people keep giving them inconsistent names and output). This is a constant source of problems. Just do away with it. To the extent topical bio infoboxes need special parameters, we can implement those as custom-parameter pass-throughs (i.e., implement |customN= at the meta-template).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  15:36, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Image_upright

|image_upright= needs to be added to the list of known parameters. It is being shown as an unknown parameter in articles like Edgar Allan Poe.--Auric talk 00:10, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

added. Frietjes (talk) 15:51, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

alternative names

If a writer is best known by one name (in this case birth name) but also writes under another name (here married name), how can we show that married name in the infobox. It was deleted as "pseudonym" by an editor who said "wasn't a pen name". The definition in the template documentation is "Any of the person's aliases or pen names." Is that intended to include an alternative real name as in this case? What's the definition of an alias or a pen name? The article in question is Adelaide Phillpotts who wrote her later works as Adelaide Ross after a late marriage. I'm sure she's not the only woman to whom this applies, and there are of course also men who change their name legally at some point in their life. Pinging @Jimbonarna: as the editor who removed this name. PamD 11:31, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

The more general {{Infobox person}} has a useful field "Other names", missing in this one. PamD 11:33, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

This is a good example of why templates like this are increasingly being turned into wrappers for {{Infobox person}} as they should have been from the start. Its a maintenance butt-pain to try to re-re-re-implement the same features over and over again on a wide profusion of redundant templates, and the result is rarely consistent parameters anyway (people keep giving them inconsistent names and output).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  15:33, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I was just attempting to add "other name" to Ferenc Molnár, since a huge number of English sources refer to him as "Franz Molnar", only to discover that the parameter doesn't exist, and "nickname" and "pseudonym" don't really apply. --tronvillain (talk) 15:07, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Honorifics

Please change to match {{Infobox person}}:

• <span class="honorific-prefix" style="font-size:small;">
• <span class="honorific-suffix" style="font-size:small;">

To this:

• <span class="honorific-prefix" style="font-size: 77%; font-weight: normal;">
• <span class="honorific-suffix" style="font-size: 77%; font-weight: normal;">

Thank-you.--Nevé–selbert 10:48, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

@Neve-selbert: Done. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:50, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Profession specific Infoboxes

Surely profession specific infoboxes should be treated as subsets of {{Infobox person}}? As such they should contain the same parameters as the latter as a minimum, plus profession specific fields, such as period=, in this case. Why does infobox person have a parents= parameter but not infobox writer? This makes it very difficult for people writing biography pages across professions, it there is no standardisation. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 15:02, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

An alternative approach would he to have profession specific subtemplates that could be embedded using module= --Michael Goodyear (talk) 13:23, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Agree with you, that's why I proposed to convert it into a wrapper. Capankajsmilyo (talk) 07:32, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Why is there an ugly line above the signature parameter?

I know there is some historic debate about the inclusion or not of signatures (and the uses of signatures vs. autographs), but is there any good reason to separate the signature from everything else in the infobox by a thin line? The line doesn't appear in signature fields in {{infobox scientist}}, nor {{infobox office holder}}. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:41, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

checking the template history, it's been there since this edit over 10 years ago. it made more sense back when there was collapsed influenced/influences sections, but now not so useful. I would support making the rendering similar to {{infobox person}} which puts the label above the signature. Frietjes (talk) 23:20, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, putting it there would allow for a more uniform style across other templates (with the exception of {{infobox office holder}}). It might also be nice to have the option of not having the label "Signature" at all: it should be self-evident, just as we don't label "image" or "photograph" for the lead image. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:26, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Convert to wrapper

I initiated this discussion earlier. Would like to retry. I have already worked on the {{Infobox writer/sandbox}} and the result can be seen at {{Infobox writer/testcases}}. I guess, it's time to convert it into a wrapper per WP:INFOCOL. Capankajsmilyo (talk) 07:31, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Looking at your testcases, I much prefer the original template. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:49, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Would you prefer works and awards to be in writing career part? Capankajsmilyo (talk) 12:26, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

This is a significant change that should be advertised in more places than just this page. Also, the signature doesn't work in the new version. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:39, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

@Jonesey95: the signature issue was due to a recent edit which has been reverted. I have advertised this at few spots but I'm not good at advertising RFCs. Perhaps you can guide me on it. Thanks Capankajsmilyo (talk) 16:42, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, you could start by creating an RfC - at the moment this isn't set up as one, so I would hope we wouldn't treat it as one. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:37, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, "I don't like it" is not a good reason not to proceed. Would you care to say why you prefer the original? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:16, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Why exactly are Spouse(s), Partner(s), Children, and Relatives parameters so high now?

Ah, it's the "writing career" section being at the bottom, which could make sense.--tronvillain (talk) 13:37, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Proceed

I guess there has been sufficient time and opportunities to raise concerns and present views. The RFC itself expired recently. So I guess we can proceed with conversion. Pigsonthewing Frietjes would you like to help please? Capankajsmilyo^{(Talk | Infobox assistance)} 08:56, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Er, no. The point of the "RfC" (to the extent it was one) was to assess consensus for that change, not to rubber-stamp it. No uninvolved closer looking at the above discussion would conclude that you have consensus to proceed. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:02, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Capankajsmilyo, can you please remind us where you posted the RFC? I have forgotten. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:54, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Jonesey95 this was the RFC. Capankajsmilyo^{(Talk | Infobox assistance)} 05:42, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. It looks like the new template is a clear improvement, with one big change (grouping the writing career information in its own section) and many small changes (fixing the display when the name parameter is blank, adding "(s)" when there is a possibility of singular or plural items). I think you should make this change. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:19, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Disagree - moving the writing information down and family up is backwards to what is most important about the average subject for whom this template is used. Adding "(s)" could easily be done within the existing template. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:49, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: How can we move forward towards a decision? Capankajsmilyo^{(Talk | Infobox assistance)} 02:10, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Make a proper RfC, advertise it in appropriate venues, then request that someone at WP:ANRFC assess if it results in consensus for a change. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:34, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 26 October 2018

Could a home town parameter ({{{home_town|}}}) be added exclusively for cases where the subject's home town is different from their birth place? This would be in line with {{Infobox person}}, {{Infobox academic}}, {{Infobox scientist}}, etc. Thanks, 142.160.89.97 (talk) 23:48, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please make your requested changes to the template's sandbox first; see WP:TESTCASES. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:10, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

@JJMC89: Done. The requested code is at Template:Infobox writer/sandbox and examples are available at Template:Infobox writer/testcases. 142.160.89.97 (talk) 18:06, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

 Done — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:36, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 14 February 2019

Could a parents parameter be added to the template in line with {{Infobox person}}, {{Infobox academic}}, etc.? The necessary code is in the template sandbox. Thanks, 142.160.89.97 (talk) 02:33, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done -- /Alex/₂₁ 02:53, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

How is this not information bloat, degrading the quality of a specialized infobox by cluttering it with trivia? I'm open to being convinced. I do however think it grossly inappropriate to instantly grant a request to add a new field without any time for discussion. --Pi zero (talk) 14:10, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 29 April 2019

Template:Tooltip has been deprecated. All transclusions of {{tooltip}} on this template should be replaced by {{abbr}}. This change has already been carried out for the sandbox.

I also have an identical edit request at Template talk:Infobox racing driver § Template-protected edit request on 29 April 2019 e^πi (talk | contribs) 15:14, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

 Done – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:29, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Lists

The docs want people to use <br /> or commas to mark up lists in params like |notableworks= and |movement=, which is now bad practice per Template:Infobox person#Inline lists, which describes how to correctly use the various list templates. Is there a reason not to fix it?

Additionally, the template has |notableworks=, unlike |notable_works= that is used by some other infoboxes, like {{Infobox artist}} and {{Infobox actor}}. It seems that most parm names that are multi-word have a separator of some kind (space, hyphen, underscore). Should it at least have this as an alias? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 10:18, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

• (Edit: It does advise against br tags, but still says to use commas instead of the preferred list templates.) —[AlanM1(talk)]— 22:13, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

• Update: I've updated the docs to specify use of {{Cslist}} instead of the manual comma-separated lists per the above. I've also made the language specifying use of other list templates consistent, including links to the rationale and details (here), and changed the remaining instruction to use br tags to {{Unbulleted list}}. I made a couple other cosmetic and minor tweaks as well. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 23:22, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 18 March 2020: De-italicize the Portal link

Greetings and felicitations. Currently the Literature portal link in the infobox is italicized, which is not the case for other portals in infoboxes that I can find (e.g., Template:Infobox_WorldScouting, Template:Infobox Latter Day Saint biography, and Template:Infobox animanga/Footer), nor is it covered under MOS:ITALICS. Would someone please be so kind as to correct this? —DocWatson42 (talk) 07:41, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done. I can't see any reason for italics here. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:48, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

@Jonesey95: Thank you. ^_^ —DocWatson42 (talk) 00:04, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

@Jonesey95: Actually, I have question. I copied, pasted, and modified this section's title to fit this case. Is there a way to automatically generate this class of section titles? I seem to recall having this done by a link in the talkheader template on other talk pages, but I couldn't find the link here. —DocWatson42 (talk) 03:25, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

If you go to the actual template page and click Edit, you will see a notice explaining that only Template Editors can edit the page. It says "This page is currently protected so that only template editors and administrators can edit it." There should be a button called "Submit an edit request". That will create a section on the talk page for you. (I don't see it, since I have the template editor permission, but I can see it if I am logged out.) – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:35, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

@Jonesey95: Ah! Thank you. ^_^ —DocWatson42 (talk) 04:37, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Works, rather than notable works?

Would it be possible to add a field for "Works" into an IB? It could be used to carry a link from an article to a bibliographic list page. For example, there is space in George Orwell's article to list five "notable" works, but nowhere to add the link to George Orwell bibliography. This seems counterintuative to me: if IBs are supposed to "summarize key features of the page's subject", then a link to the whole, rather than self-selected pieces are a better way of doing it? - SchroCat (talk) 16:39, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Comparison with Infobox person

Parameter	Infobox writer	Infobox person
abovestyle
agent
alias
alma mater
alma_mater
alt
awards
baptised
baptized
birth_date
birth_name
birth_place
birthname
boards
body discovered
body_discovered
box_width
burial_coordinates
burial_place
callsign
caption
child
children
citizenship
credits
criminal charge
criminal penalty
criminal status
criminal_charge
criminal_charges
criminal_penalty
criminal_status
death cause
death_cause
death_date
death_place
denomination
disappeared_date
disappeared_place
disappeared_status
domestic_partner
domesticpartner
education
embed
employer
era
ethnicity
family
father
footnotes
genre
genres
height
height_cm
height_ft
height_in
height_m
home town
home_town
homepage
honorific prefix
honorific suffix
honorific_prefix
honorific_suffix
honorific-prefix
honorific-suffix
honors
honours
image
image caption
image size
image_caption
image_size
image_upright
imagesize
influenced
influences
judicial status
judicial_status
known
known for
known_for
label_name
landscape
language
misc
misc2
misc3
misc4
misc5
misc6
module
module2
module3
module4
module5
module6
monuments
mother
movement
name
nationality
native_name
native_name_lang
net worth
net_worth
networth
nickname
nocat_wdimage
notable works
notable_works
notablework
notableworks
occupation
office
opponents
organisation
organization
organizations
other names
other_names
othername
parent
parents
partner
partner(s)
partners
party
penname
period
portaldisp
post-nominals
pre-nominals
predecessor
pronunciation
pseudonym
relations
relatives
religion
residence
resting place
resting place coordinates
resting_place
resting_place_coordinates
restingplace
restingplacecoordinates
siglum
signature
signature alt
signature_alt
signature_size
spouse
spouse(s)
spouses
status
style
subject
subjects
successor
television
term
title
URL
url
website
works
years active
years_active
yearsactive

I guess this qualifies for conversion into wrapper of Infobox person. Capankajsmilyo^{(Talk | Infobox assistance)} 02:12, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Your chart seems to demonstrate limited overlap between the two. Not seeing a case for conversion. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:34, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Yeah right, out of around 175 params, Infobox person don't have merely 12 params, and this is no case of conversion. Good observation. Capankajsmilyo^{(Talk | Infobox assistance)} 02:46, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

The table above lists parameters as supported that are not supported by infobox person. I have removed a few, but there are still some left. Whatever method was used to generate this table needs to be fixed before any useful conclusions can be drawn from the table. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:15, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Jonesey95. This was generated using User:Frietjes/templatecompare Capankajsmilyo^{(Talk | Infobox assistance)} 05:18, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Please check the output of that tool against the actual usage of parameters by the infobox, and the infobox's documentation. See the Caveats section of that tool's page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:55, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Jonesey95 Please see {{Infobox writer/sandbox}} and {{Infobox writer/testcases}} which I converted two years ago. I respect your comment but I expect efforts of editors like me are also given the same respect. Capankajsmilyo^{(Talk | Infobox assistance)} 16:00, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

That sandbox is some good, constructive work. If you update the sandbox to match the current template's parameters and then start a real conversation about what you would like to achieve and why (ideally removing or collapsing the giant table above), you may get better results. As for your comment about your efforts, I will respect your efforts more when you listen to and incorporate feedback from your fellow editors. You have repeatedly spammed versions of the giant table above into template talk pages, even after being informed that the list of parameters in the table is invalid. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:09, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

The sandbox contains the latest params which can be verified by the testcases page. Now I would like to know how and when can this one be converted into wrapper. If not, what is the appropriate argument for not doing so. My argument to do it is simply it makes the template maintainence work doable. Coding and editiing are teo fields which work in almost opposite direction. While the editing is better off when is done in isolation and is repeated multiple times, coding is better off when is done collectively and is reused. So lesser templates would imply better templates and wrappers can be a good step forward in that direction. Capankajsmilyo^{(Talk | Infobox assistance)} 01:01, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Standardise notableworks

Please convert |notableworks= to |notable_works= to make it consistent with {{Infobox person}} Capankajsmilyo^{(Talk | Infobox assistance)} 02:47, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:20, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Jonesey95, by converting I meant deprecating |notableworks= in favour of |notable_works=. Capankajsmilyo^{(Talk | Infobox assistance)} 23:49, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

If you want to modify the documentation, be my guest. It is not protected. Or are you volunteering to convert the 10,000+ articles that use the |notableworks= parameter to your preferred parameter? If you are not volunteering for this task, I don't see the point in marking a long-supported parameter as deprecated unless it is part of a more comprehensive project. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:37, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

I could have done that too using AWB, but some editors will start targetting me then. So for now, I guess doc conversion would be a good start, which I have done. Thanks again. Capankajsmilyo^{(Talk | Infobox assistance)} 04:32, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Deprecate parent

Would it be possible to deprecate |parent= in favour of |father= and |mother= or adding the latter two to make this IB consistent with other Bio IB? Capankajsmilyo^{(Talk | Infobox assistance)} 04:35, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Residence parameter

Should the Residence parameter be removed since it was removed from Infobox person as well? See the template discussion for why. Zarex (talk) 22:01, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

• Support removal of |residence= per above Capankajsmilyo^{(Talk | Infobox assistance)} 04:38, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Aren't parameters "years_active" and "period" effectively one and the same?

The description suggests they'd be virtually identical. (I'd rather merge them and add parameters for father/mother). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:47, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Two Birth Year

If the person has two different birth year like this, how can I put it in 'birth_date' parameter? --Gazal world (talk) 08:55, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

What has been done there is fine. Unfortunately if the date is uncertain you can't use the age calculation. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:09, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: OK. Thank you very much. --Gazal world (talk) 05:20, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Cell paddings

labelstyle currently has a CSS for padding and line-height that make it not align with the table cell right to it. Northern Moonlight 21:02, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Edit request

Please remove the "residence" field per the rfc at Template talk:Infobox person/Archive 34#Residence parameter. As far as I can tell that rfc's outcome applies to this template. If I am in error we can certainly have another rfc here. MarnetteD|Talk 22:18, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

 Done – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:56, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Jonesey95 - and |hometown= per Template talk:Infobox person#Home town field. MB 19:52, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:19, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Signature size

I propose adding a Signature_size option due to certain signatures not properly resizing in infoboxes. The "Infobox military person" template has this option already. Kj1595 (talk) 03:26, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Fixed weird display on mobile

I have fixed the strange appearance of this infobox on mobile in the sandbox: diff. Here is the slight difference in display on desktop ([2]), and here is the fix on mobile ([3]). If there are no objections, I will open a TPER in a few days. — Goszei (talk) 19:45, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 25 May 2021

Opening a TPER, per my previous post below (WP:TPEBOLD). — Goszei (talk) 21:51, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

 Done (was just granted TPE rights today). — Goszei (talk) 22:53, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Fixed weird display on mobile

I have fixed the strange appearance of this infobox on mobile in the sandbox: diff. Here is the slight difference in display on desktop ([4]), and here is the fix on mobile ([5]). If there are no objections, I will open a TPER in a few days. — Goszei (talk) 19:45, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Signature hr

Remove this, it isnt inlien with any other infoboxes niko3818 (talk) 03:14, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Seconded. More precisely, please remove | data29 = {{#if:{{{signature|}}} |<hr/>}}. --Fippe (talk) 17:48, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

 Done * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:12, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Philosophies familiar with

I want to add the parameter philosophies familiar with or philosophies that influenced him, or worded in a better way. Jmcs96 (talk) 05:21, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

This would be better explained in the article text. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:13, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Signature type

Please see this edit, East Asian and Vietnamese writers commonly use a seal like this as a form of personalised signature, so I would like to propose adding "Signature_type" to the infobox. It would be even handier to have a separate entry for "Seal" as many modern Oriental writers may have both. --Donald Trung (talk) 07:46, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

• And another Oriental writer, why should this specific infobox have such a Eurocentric layout? Should I just add this as "an edit request"? Seems better to add this parameter than just removing it. Also, the seals appear too big, maybe we should also have a parameter to determine image size for signatures. --07:09, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Website field

Is there a way to left justify the "Website" field? It looks out of place in this infobox. If not, I would like to propose the "Website" field be left justified (standard in most other infoboxes) and if required, a new "Website_alt" field be introduced to satisfy the need why it is currently centered. Thank you! — WILDSTAR^talk 15:23, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Add employer field

Employer exists in infobox person, but not here. It's probably not relevant for authors of books, but I think it is significant enough for the infobox of writers for newspapers, magazines, websites, etc. MB 14:47, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Proposed short description

I propose adding {{ucfirst:{{Short description|1={{ #if: {{{nationality|}}}| {{{nationality|}} |}} writer}}|2=noreplace}} which should add a short description in the format [nationality] writer. ― Qwerfjkltalk 16:28, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Notified Wikipedia:WikiProject Writing ― Qwerfjkltalk 16:35, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

I like Nationality genre writer but do not have the template skills to determine how to select first of multiple genres.

No objection to the proposal as stated. —¿philoserf? (talk) 16:38, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

@Philoserf I think you can use {{#if:{{{genre|}}}|{{{genre|}}}|{{#if: {{genres|}}|{{#invoke:String|match|{{{genres}}}|%a+|match=1|nomatch=}}}}}} (added just before writer) ― Qwerfjkltalk 16:49, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not sure that would work. ― Qwerfjkltalk 16:51, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

This needs refinement. You need to strip wikilink code, for example. See this version of my sandbox for an example copied from a real article. Find an infobox with more sophisticated text handling. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:46, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

@Jonesey95 @Philoserf Looking at the articles that use |genres=, it seems very difficult to tell what the first genre is, and it seems arbitrary to use the first genre listed. ― Qwerfjkltalk 20:18, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

an editor can always override the generated short description. i'd just like a sane default. i have seen for example {{infobox game}} that use short description "Game" and thus must be overridden nearly everywhere to be useful. —¿philoserf? (talk) 16:04, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

@Philoserf it would be very difficult to tell what the first genre is, as sometimes {{plainlist}} is used, sometimes {{hlist}}, sometimes <br /> (just looking at a few cases). ― Qwerfjkltalk 16:11, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Acknowledged —¿philoserf? (talk) 16:15, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

In the other hand, if there's only one genre, that would be easy enough: {{#if: {{{genre|}}}|{{Delink|{{{genre|}}}|}} ― Qwerfjkltalk 20:21, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

The {{{nationality}}} should probably be delinked as well. ― Qwerfjkltalk 15:20, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Pinging @Goszei as a recent contributor; currently I have: {{ucfirst:{{Short description|1={{ #if: {{{nationality|}}}| {{Delink|{{{nationality|}}}} |}} {{#if: {{{genre|}}}|{{Delink|{{{genre|}}}|}} writer {{#if:{{{birth_date|}}}|{{#if:{{{death_date|}}}| ({{#invoke:String|match|{{{birth_date}}}|%d%d%d%d?|match=1|nomatch=}} — {{#invoke:String|match|{{{death_date}}}|%d%d%d%d?|match=1|nomatch=}})| (born {{#invoke:String|match|{{{pub_date}}}|%d%d%d%d?|match=1|nomatch=}})}}}}|2=noreplace}}
producing [nationality] [genre] writer (born X)/(X — Y). Not sure if the genre is needed - see below. Pinging @Jonesey95 and @Philoserf as well. ― Qwerfjkltalk 22:02, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

I think including |genre= is hopeless. I clicked on three articles at random from the first page of the TemplateData monthly report, and the second one, Carlo Collodi, shows that including the genre field will not work. The third article, Clive Barker, would also generate less than desirable results. I think that you should try for "nationality writer (born X)/(X–Y)" in the sandbox, and then copy some infoboxes to your sandbox and try it out to see if it works (do this regardless of what you are proposing, as it will reveal obvious problems before you spend the time to post again here). Note that I removed the spaces in the proposed year range, per MOS. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:50, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

@Jonesey95 After testing it on 3 random articles, this code seems to work:
{{#ifeq:{{{embed|}}}|yes||{{Short description|1={{ucfirst:{{ #if: {{{nationality|}}}| {{Delink|{{{nationality|}}}}} |}} writer {{#if:{{{birth_date|}}}|{{#if:{{{death_date|}}}| ({{#invoke:String|match|{{{birth_date}}}|%d%d%d%d?|match=1|nomatch=}}−{{#invoke:String|match|{{{death_date}}}|%d%d%d%d?|match=1|nomatch=}})| (born {{#invoke:String|match|{{{birth_date}}}|%d%d%d%d?|match=1|nomatch=}})}}}}}}|2=noreplace}}}}  ― Qwerfjkltalk 09:03, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

I do not see any test results. Please put your proposed changes in the template's sandbox. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:22, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

 Done @Jonesey95 ― Qwerfjkltalk 07:11, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria Is this okay? ― Qwerfjkltalk 08:52, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

In what cases have you tested this? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:41, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria I've tested it on three random pages (you can check my sandbox history), and the testcases page seems to work fine. ― Qwerfjkltalk 19:49, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Not quite - the emdash should be an endash. Also I think when the box is embedded the automatic summary should not display. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:09, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria  Done ― Qwerfjkltalk 20:22, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

See User:Qwerfjkl/sandbox3, although I find it unlikely that any of the relevant parameters would be used in its embedded form. ― Qwerfjkltalk 20:47, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

I see that your sandbox has both embedded and not embedded at the same time - what is it intended to show? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:48, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria The number for the date of birth is from the second template, not the first, meaning the first must have been suppressed. ― Qwerfjkltalk 06:52, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Okay, but that wasn't what I was asking. Look for example at Nelson Mandela - there is an embedded writer infobox, but summarizing him as "Writer" would not really make sense. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:59, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria It still gives no auto short description if embedded (and I updated the sandbox to show this). ― Qwerfjkltalk 12:25, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Okay - what about if more than one nationality is provided, for example using {{hlist}}? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:29, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria I believe I have fixed this (though hlist is only used on two articles, both of which have a short description). I have applied {{Plain text}} and then suppressed.the nationality when it contains a ASCII letter (such as , / ). An example can be seen at User:Qwerfjkl/sandbox3. The changes are at User:Qwerfjkl/sandbox2. ― Qwerfjkltalk 10:16, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

I wonder if something might have gone wrong with that change - I've changed your sandbox version to have only a single nationality and yet this is not reflected in the shortdesc. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:02, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria Oops, I used {{#if: '''|''' (the pipe shouldn't be there). Now fixed. ― Qwerfjkltalk 16:09, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Okay. Has this latest version been thoroughly tested to avoid other bugs? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:33, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria I don't anticipate any major issues with the birth_date and death_date parameters (all it does is look the first 4-digit number). The nationality parameter should be okay, though the biggest issue will probably be using the country instead of the nationality (e.g. United Kingdom instead of British). Another problem could be templates, although this doesn't seem to be to much of a problem (see here for a list of articles in which the nationality parameter contains templates (and no short description)). Currently, it can correctly handle nationalities with citations and using the {{flag}} template (so long as the nationality is used, not the country). It strips the flag icon and leaves the delinked text for templates like {{USA}} (I've removed most (all?) of those). ― Qwerfjkltalk 21:38, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Filed a WP:AWBREQ. ― Qwerfjkltalk 20:00, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

I think using |nationality= should be removed. Per WP:INFONAT, this field is often redundant and it is slowly being removed from infoboxes except when it actually provides additional information (I would estimate it belongs in only around 10% of IBs). There is nothing wrong with having nationality in the SD, but it needs to be added manually (without some very complicated logic). MB 16:40, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

@MB I still think it should be kept. It's used in ~14,000 articles, and won't affect anything if no value is given. ― Qwerfjkltalk 16:08, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

It may encourage editors to add more redundant uses of |nationality= as a way of "improving" the SD. MB 16:25, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

@MB I think a note to that effect (probably on the documentation) would stop that (something like):

| nationality = <!-- ... Do not add this to change the short description -->

 ― Qwerfjkltalk 16:39, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Usage guidance is already there:

| nationality      = <!-- use only when necessary per [[WP:INFONAT]] -->

I think very few people read the documentation. MB 16:45, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

@MB Hmm... you may be right. On the other hand, if they don't read the documentation, I don't see how they won't add nationality anyway. ― Qwerfjkltalk 16:58, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

@MB My reasoning would be that they won't known add |nationality= to change the short description unless they read the documentation, where a message could be out to discourage this. ― Qwerfjkltalk 10:51, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

@Qwerfjkl, MB, Nikkimaria, Jonesey95, and Philoserf: I am declining the 3O request. There are more than 2 participants in this dispute, so I would recommend taking this to the WP:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Sorry for the inconvenience, Sennecaster (Chat) 13:44, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

• This is the problem with trying to create automated “template” short descriptions.

The short description should be tightly focused on what makes the individual subject notable. In most cases, a person’s nationality is background information - not central to their notability - and is thus irrelevant to the short description. In the rare cases where nationality (or any other “group” label) does form a central part of the subject’s notability, it can be added to the short description by hand. Blueboar (talk) 14:10, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

The above opinion is contrary to the advice given at Wikipedia:Short description#Examples, contrary to actual SD usage in hundreds of thousands of articles, and contrary to normal practice at disambiguation articles. Nationality is a useful disambiguator, helpful for people searching for a specific "John Smith" or "Carlos López". – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:28, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request

Please add the following code to automatically generate a short description: (see Proposed short description above) {{ucfirst:{{Short description|1={{ #if: {{{nationality|}}}| {{Delink|{{{nationality|}}}} |}} {{#if: {{{genre|}}}|{{Delink|{{{genre|}}}|}} writer}}|2=noreplace}}  ― Qwerfjkltalk 07:55, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy ping: @Philoserf @Jonesey95 ― Qwerfjkltalk 07:57, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

This approach would not seem likely to produce a result in line with WP:HOWTOSD, which prefers nationality and dates rather than nationality and genre for disambiguation. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:14, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria It that case, this could be added to the end: {{#if:{{{birth_date|}}}|{{#if:{{{death_date|}}}| ({{#invoke:String|match|{{{birth_date}}}|%d%d%d%d?|match=1|nomatch=}} — {{#invoke:String|match|{{{death_date}}}|%d%d%d%d?|match=1|nomatch=}})| (born {{#invoke:String|match|{{{pub_date}}}|%d%d%d%d?|match=1|nomatch=}})}}  ― Qwerfjkltalk 13:31, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

...which would add dates but keep genre. As above, I think this proposal needs more refinement. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:32, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 13:59, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Pppery, I believe I have fixed all the issues (here here). Should I try to establish more consensus? ― Qwerfjkltalk 19:13, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

You don't have to satisfy me, you have to satisfy Nikkimaria and anyone else watching this talk page, which you clearly haven't done since she responded to the comment you claimed fixed all of the issues with more problems that you seem to have spent no effort fixing. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:15, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

@Pppery Sorry, wrong link. ― Qwerfjkltalk 19:17, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

@Pppery I'm not sure if you followed the correct link, since I have corrected those issues. ― Qwerfjkltalk 12:03, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done. Please reach agreement with Nikkimaria before reactivating this request — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:45, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Reactivating. See User:Qwerfjkl/sandbox3 — Qwerfjkltalk 16:27, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

I am not aware of any prohibition on genre, date, or nationaity, as long as they are correct. Any editor can improve the short description by crafting a customised version that better suits the topic, but the automated default must not be wrong or misleading. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 18:00, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Hopefully, this shouldn't malfunction. The nationality will be ignored if contains a non-ASCII character - to avoid complications like dual nationalities, etc. - and the birth/death date gets the first year given in the parameter. (The genre proved too difficult.) ― Qwerfjkltalk 18:12, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Reactivating (hopefully for the final time). I've removed the usage of {{{nationality}}}, which @MB brought up issues with, and so I request that the changes from User:Qwerfjkl/sandbox2 be implemented. ― Qwerfjkltalk 22:37, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

That will just produce writer unless birth and death date is given. Would it be better to use just the birth date for living people? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:36, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

@MSGJ: I removed this earlier due to another editor's concerns that these are often unreliable. ― Qwerfjkltalk 13:49, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

I've deployed, but I think the code can be improved. I don't understand why the birth date would be considered unreliable for living people, but acceptable for dead people. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:41, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Parameter to turn off short description

This template is generating a short description (with an error in it, when the subject is still living) even when the article already has a separate short description. We need a means of turning off the short desc. code in this template entirely.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:35, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

It also seems to be overriding local SDs (living or not). MSGJ, you should probably back out the change. MB 21:43, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

 Reverted, looks like further testing is needed — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:49, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

The |2=noreplace looks like it was in the wrong place. I think it needed to be moved two braces to the left (i.e. it was outside the SD template). – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:39, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Signature format

There is a signature in Joseph Mellor Hanson that is out of proportion. There is no |signature_size= in this template. Also, the signature is displayed in the right column of the infobox instead of being centered at the bottom. Can this be made to work like the signature in {{infobox person}}. Jonesey95? MB 01:25, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

 Done. Let me know if I broke anything. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:14, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

It looks fine to me. I do note that this template has the website centered with a heading, so with both signature and website, you get Arthur Miller, whereas infobox person does it differently. I don't have an example offhand, but the website in infobox person is in the data column with a label. Since URLs can be long, websites in this template probably wrap less often, which is better. If there is no complaint about this format, maybe in the future we should consider changing other templates. MB 05:52, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Religion Parameter

How does one include a 'religion' parameter in the template? SmoovOpr8r (talk) 16:12, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

It is not available. There is a notice at {{infobox person}} with links to the RFC on this. That applies to all related biographical infobox templates. MB 16:19, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

I see. Thank you. SmoovOpr8r (talk) 09:30, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

If the religion of the writer is important to understanding the person, and you have a reliable source that supports information about the person's religion, you can include that information in the body of the article. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:47, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Native names

Is there any reason why native names are displayed differently between the writer ibox and the person ibox (and all its wrapper derivatives)? For example, Hani al-Rahib versus Ayman al-Zawahiri. Thrakkx (talk) 15:25, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

The reason is that this 2019 discussion was implemented only in some infoboxes. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:08, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Website alignment

I've noticed the website parameter is centered for Template:Infobox_writer instead of being left aligned like the other parameters and like the website in Template:Infobox_person. Is there any way we could fix this for consistency please? :) I thought it was a bug in an article I recently edited and then I realised it's just the template. AlanTheScientist (talk) 17:39, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

I mentioned this above in the Signature section. This may be better because URLs are often long and would more often fit on one line when able to use the entire infobox width. I assume that is why it was done this way in this template. I suggested it may be better to change other infoboxes to work like this one. MB 19:03, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Add employer field - ask again

Employer exists in infobox person, but not here. It's probably not relevant for authors of books, but I think it is significant enough for the infobox of writers for newspapers, magazines, websites, etc. MB 7:47 am, 24 September 2021, Friday (11 months, 26 days ago) (UTC−7)

There has been no opposition. I found someone else trying to use it today in Vladimir Nabokov, so that should count as further support. With no opposition, can you add this Jonesey95? MB 17:58, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Where should it go in the infobox? Would you like to take a stab at making this change in the sandbox? – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:37, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

@Jonesey95 I tried, but couldn't get it to work. I was trying to put it after the existing #18 Literary Movement. MB 19:42, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

 Done. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:55, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Edit request 14 November 2022

Description of suggested change: Addition of cause of death label @ line 44. This will require numerical updates for subsequent labels.

Diff: @ Line 44

−

+

|label4 = Cause of death |data4 = {{{death cause|{{{death_cause|}}}}}}

Will also require update @ line 127 for unknown parameter check.

Thanks! Please advise with any mistakes or for clarificaiton. Bgv. (talk) 01:15, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done Please get consensus for this change before submitting an edit request. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:17, 14 November 2022 (UTC)