Template talk:Infobox writer/Archive 6

Cause of death parameter

Given the sometimes volatile nature of writers generally, and their occasionally infamous deaths, I'd like to suggest adding a cause of death paramter to the template, like that used in {{infobox person}} -- btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:41, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

'Support. Standardising on generic fields from {{Infobox person}} is a good thing. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:17, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but can we please make a stronger point in the documentation about the need to carefully select the fields? Far too often, editors seem to think that all fields are required, or at least standard. This can lead to distorted information and obvious repetition. Tony (talk) 12:37, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I think is getting too much, and don't see how "cause of death" would be that relevant for a writer that it would need to appear in the infobox. I found the inclusion of "resting place" was already on the limit of relevance. The role of the infobox is to provide a quick summary of the article, and I think parameters like this erode that purpose. Otherwise I agree with Tony, in case there is consensus for inclusion, it should be marked "optional" or "to be used only if relevant". --Elekhh (talk) 06:07, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

It's loading up infoboxes with marginal information. My other concern is that some editors don't exercise judgement as to which parameters should be included, and simply maximise. Tony (talk) 06:16, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

triple indentation

{{Editprotected}} Could someone kindly remove the “:::” which precedes the {{{influences}}} and {{{influenced}}} parameters? If the intent is to center the name(s) in question, we have easier and better ways to do this. However I see no reason not to use the complete available width. ―AoV² 05:20, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree; {{Editprotected}} added. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 17:14, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

 Done, although I think centering might be more pleasing to the eye. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:37, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Religion parameter

Wouldn't it be a good idea to add a "religion" parameter? --174.114.3.8 (talk) 17:10, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

No. This has been discussed before, extensively. Bottom line: If a religion influenced the writer, the appropriate field is influences; and if it didn't influence the writer, it doesn't belong in the writer infobox. --Pi zero (talk) 23:06, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. And most writers, I think, would object to the intrusion of the supernatural industry right at the top. Tony (talk) 02:42, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

But there is talk below of replacing this template with {{Infobox person}} which would make religion an available field for those who would like to decorate articles of writers (I think that would be a possible outcome). Johnuniq (talk) 04:12, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Decorate? This is an encyclopedia here. Strong oppose. --Elekhh (talk) 04:39, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Code overhaul

I've worked on the sandbox to tidy and foolproof the code, along with making some parts (such as the dividers) less hackish. A comparison of old versus new is available at the test cases page. Please check the new code out to make sure it works properly; if there are no problems I'll request sync with the live code. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Good idea - but there seems to be very little difference between this template and {{Infobox person}} - why not merge with (or call) that? The |penname= parameter could be accommodated using the latter's |nickname=, and making the label of that field editable. All other fields seem to map directly to those in {{Infobox person}}. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 08:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

One step at a time. There's an ongoing proposal at template talk:Infobox person to come up with a true subclassing system, but my main priority at this time is ridding our most high-profile infoboxes of fugly, half-broken and inconsistent code. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:03, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

In this case, I think you could avoid the work; since the two templates in question are 95% the same. See also earlier discussion.Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 09:07, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

{{Infobox person}} has many fields that should not be available in Infobox Writer. The one that leaps to mind, because I have been involved in the discussions and ultimate resolution of it, is religion; we really want to not have a religion field in Infobox writer, because the only time it's relevant to the writer's identity as a writer is when it influences their work, and in that case it should appear in field influences. --Pi zero (talk) 23:47, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

We don't tend to have separate templates just to enforce the exclusion of a particular field. What if a person is notable as a writer and for something religious; like Cardinal Newman, for example? We should have one standard set of generic fields for biographical infoboxes, rather than the current pick'n'mix approach. However, if exclusion must happen, it can be catered for, by making this template a wrapper which calls call {{Infobox person}} (see, for example, how {{Infobox Region of Italy}} calls {{Infobox settlement}}, and omitting the field from that wrapper. It's my understanding that |Influences= (and |Influenced=) are for people. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 09:09, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I said many fields. Not "a particular field". Religion was just an example; I apologize if I didn't made that sufficiently clear. A lot of effort has gone into defending this infobox against inclusion of fields that are not appropriate to its function, keeping them down to a standard set; idiosyncratic information about a particular writer should go in the lead, not the infobox. I would hope the same is true of most infoboxes for classes of people. The appalling bloat of Infobox person, with nearly twice as many fields as Infobox writer, is not a blessing to be bestowed, it's an affliction that this specialized infobox, at least, has managed to avoid up till now. Foisting all the fields of Infobox person on all those specialized infoboxes is undoubtedly done with all kinds of good faith, but it's likely to insidiously degrade Wikipedia over time, on a massive scale. --Pi zero (talk) 03:06, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

One field or many [sic] fields; my point is still valid, and you have overlooked, ignored, or not understood it. Your pejorative tone is not helpful; and your hyperbolic conclusion both unfounded and based on a straw-man. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:28, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

(I wish my ability to articulate my good intentions could consistently live up to the intentions themselves. I'll try to make amends and rephrase less objectionably and more clearly.)

There was no pejorative intent in anything I wrote, but it clearly did come across that way, and I apologize. Granted, the "foisting" remark was unnecessarily hyperbolic, and I should have spent (even) more time looking for another way to express the point. I didn't intend that remark as a straw man; I only meant it as a compact way of pointing out what I believe to be a valid concern about the consequences of putting fields into the specialized boxes, which seems to be what is being rather vigorously advocated here. (If the introduction of the additional fields into specialized boxes is not part of what is being advocated by default (i.e., unless someone objects locally), I would greatly appreciate clarification on the point.) I should not have tried to be compact about it. The presence of these fields in the more generic box is, in my judgment, a necessary evil: the generic box, being by its nature intended to cover an unfocused range of situations, has to have lots of fields that might be inappropriate in a particular situation even though the information is available and could in principle be put into the box, whereas the specialized boxes have the luxury of presenting a coherent set of relevant fields to the reader. It seems that we may have a significant disagreement about the purpose of the specialized boxes, though again it is entirely possible that I have misunderstood your position. I perceive a major part of their value to Wikipedia (along with their specialized fields, of course) to be their carefully thought-out omission of many of the generic fields, so as to present a usefully uniform and relevant summary infobox pattern across all articles within their purview. This is why I do think that introducing the generic fields into a specialized infobox would have insidious consequences, not something noticed right away but an imperceptibly slow (imperceptibly slow in many cases, at least) downhill slide that would occur across a large number of articles.

The |influences= field, BTW, is not limited to persons by either Infobox person or writer. --Pi zero (talk) 19:22, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I've also added |resting_place_coordinates= and some additional hCard microformat classes to the sandbox version. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 09:07, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Update: There's also the issue of this template's portal display, not yet available in {{Infobox person}} ; raised at Template talk:Infobox person#Portal display. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 09:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Requesting sync as this doesn't seem controversial. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:06, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Done. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:57, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I won't oppose this change as an interim step, but I do think we should still work towards a full merge with {{Infobox person}}, there being so little difference. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:33, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

As a first step, could we look into changing the backend of this template to use {{Infobox person}}? If that is successful, and if there is consensus, then the resulting template could be simply substituted in the end. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:52, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The "Died" field is now showing up as "Born" when I use Firefox. Display is normal in IE8.--ShelfSkewed Talk 20:04, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Done. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:19, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 31stCenturyMatt, 10 June 2010

{{editprotected}} Look at Roald Dahl for example, it says "Born" twice. The second one should be "Died". Edit: It looks like ShelfSkewed beat me too it. Still needs fixing, though. Thanks.

31stCenturyMatt (talk) 02:32, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Done. Hopefully that was the only bug. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:19, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Nationality and citizenship

In what way are they different? 112.118.149.119 (talk) 22:32, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, this is infobox bloat. If there is some nuance about the difference, it belongs in the main text. I believe citizenship should be removed. And while we're at it, what exactly does "education" mean? Qualifications? High-school attended? Subjects studied? University degree? Again, this is not infobox stuff, but should appear in the main text. And why "death place" and "resting place"? Infoboxes should not be a whole article in themselves. Tony (talk) 03:51, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Back when these fields were discussed in January of 2009, I see I'd suggested these usage notes (just before the discussion fizzled out without doing anything, apparently):

Nationality	Nationality. The nation or nations of the the writer's origin, culture, association, affiliation, and/or loyalty. Use this field either instead of citizenship (below) in cases where use of the citizenship field would cause confusion, instead of, or in addition to, citizenship in cases where the person's identity is strongly associated with the nationality, or in cases where the person's nationality is important to their writing.
Ethnicity	Ethnicity. The ethnic group or groups which the writer belongs to or identifies with. Use this field either in cases where the person's identity is strongly associated with the ethnicity, or in cases where the person's ethnicity is important to their writing.
Citizenship	Citizenship. See usage notes for nationality.

The discussion is archived here. --Pi zero (talk) 20:03, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Needs brief explanation in the notes to the page overleaf, then. And is there sufficient warning to editors that they should use only the fields that are relevant to the subject? Tony (talk) 04:27, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Portal Image

{{editprotected}}

Could the changes from the sandbox be copied over to live which changes the portal image to match that used in the {{portal}} template. Thanks. -- WOSlinker (talk) 12:01, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

 Done - let me know if it isn't right. JohnCD (talk) 19:46, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Requested edit: Official website

{{edit protected}} The docs for Template:Official specifically mention that {{URL}} should be used in infoboxes — not least for microformats and because then a printed copy of the page will have an actual URL rather than just the text "Official website".

Please change the line (about a dozen lines from the end of the template's source code)

{{!}} colspan=2 style="text-align: center" {{!}} {{official|{{{website}}}}}

to read

{{!}} colspan=2 style="text-align: center" {{!}} {{URL|{{{website}}}}}

to effect this change. Thanks! — OwenBlacker (Talk) 12:20, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 15:02, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! :o) — OwenBlacker (Talk) 09:56, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if this caused it, but take a look at Anne Holt for example to see how the website entered looks... /Grillo (talk) 11:02, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that is the expected output from the {{URL}} template. If that output is not desired, then we should seek an alternative solution. For example, just display the bare input and put the formating on the actual page transcluding the template. A bot could wrap them all, and they could then be unwrapped on a case-by-case basis. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:37, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Missing key

IMHO this template should also have a "cause of death" key like Template:Infobox person does... --Morn (talk) 18:10, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Cause of death isn't significant to the person's identity as a writer. It's the sort of detail that might sometimes be mentioned in the lead of the article (and sometimes not), but I don't think it belongs in the infobox. --Pi zero (talk) 11:18, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Why would their cause of death be of less interest than for a non-writer? Quite a few writers have committed suicide and such self-destructive tendencies might also have influenced their writing. And I think more specialized infoboxes should generally add keys compared to the generic infobox, not remove them. Otherwise, why use the writer box at all when it leaves out some basic stuff? --Morn (talk) 15:09, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not a matter of less interest. It's a matter of what an infobox is for. An infobox is not a tabular summary of interesting facts, but a uniform interface for all articles about members of some particular class of entities. If the information isn't relevant to the article topic's membership in the class, it shouldn't be in the infobox. It's not immediately obvious to me that generic infoboxes like {{infobox person}} should even exist, at least not as devices that get used directly in articles —see Wikipedia:Disinfoboxes— but, given that they do exist, the extreme generality of the class of articles they seek to cover causes them to lack sharp focus, and that lack of sharp focus makes it harder to draw a crisp line where fields should be omitted. Consequently, such generic infoboxes are likely to suffer from field bloat. Specialized infoboxes have sharper focus and can therefore be more successful at resisting field bloat. --Pi zero (talk) 20:03, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, if someone offs himself that's not exactly outrageously over-specific information. I'm also against infobox bloat, but deaths from suicide or murder are usually clearly stated, not buried in the text somewhere. I was certainly not suggesting every writer needs to have the cause of death specified (e.g., "choked on chicken sandwich"), but in those cases where the deaths were unusual the articles might benefit.

The underlying problem is that WP articles have themselves become bloated. E.g. at Ernest Hemingway, you have to read four fairly massive paragraphs of introduction to get to a brief mention of his suicide in the final sentence. Sometimes I long for the days when WP managed to convey the essential information in two- or three screenfuls of text rather than 100-kB-or-longer articles. That's where infoboxes should come in to fight the bloat by highlighting important information. --Morn (talk) 20:30, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

This has been raised before here, and while I agree with you that articles tend to be getting too long, I don't think expanding the infobox is the solution to the problem. --Elekhh (talk) 22:20, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Website parameter broken

Resolved

Take a look: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=J._M._Barrie&oldid=390416747

Andy Dingley (talk) 16:33, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

The problem is not here but with {{URL}}. Try sandboxing {{URL|http://www.jmbarrie.co.uk}} --Redrose64 (talk) 17:44, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Looking deeper, it was {{str right}}, which has now been fixed. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:57, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I had already tried {{URL}}, but to no avail. Looks fine now. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:39, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Family members & notability

I thought that we were only supposed to mention children, parents, siblings, etc. when they were notable in their own right. But I don't see that mentioned in the parameters, even though it is specified on the infobox-person template page. What's the best practice on this? Thanks, Aristophanes68 (talk) 23:02, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Could be added to the template documentation page. --Elekhh (talk) 23:27, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

"Resting" place?

Blame it on Evelyn Waugh, I see this parameter's name as a euphemism. Could an admin (since this template is completely protected) add another parameter called 'burial place' or 'place of burial'? Novickas (talk) 20:45, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Wait for a day to see if anyone objects, then stick an {{editrequest}} at the top of this section. Either I, or another admin, will do it. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:15, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Pseudonym(s)

The "Pseudonym" field -- displayed as "Pen name" -- should automatically pluralize ("Pen names") when multiple names are provided. Might double-check this for other fields too. --173.76.62.17 (talk) 14:44, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Requested Edit: Cause of Death

The template should have a separate "Cause of Death" field to match the more general Template:Infobox person template. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 07:52, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

We already have a thread for this above at Missing key and has been discussed in the past, with no consensus for such an addition. --Elekhh (talk) 07:58, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Nation of resdience

Can we have a "nation of residence" box? "nationality" usually refers to "citizenship" and sometimes to "ethnicity" so it's strange to have those as the 3 categories and no place of residence box. Gregcaletta (talk) 00:30, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

"Notable" works and awards

This infobox uses the terms "Notable works" and "Notable awards" as two of its parameters. This should be fixed. It's fine in the discription of the parameter to say that only notable items should be listed but the Infobox itself should not explicitly claim notability for the items listed. The problem is when people mis-use the template with items that aren't notable, the infobox now claims that they are. Jason Quinn (talk) 16:34, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Info box template change

I like how this page is done, but regarding dates such as "<!-- {{Death date and age|Year|Month|Day|Year|Month|Day}} -->" This really should instead be <!-- {{Death date and age|YYYY|MM|DD|YYYY|MM|DD}} --> for less confusion. Anyone who is smart enough to edit and infobox will know what this means. However, with the way it is written, it looks like you could end up writing it <!-- {{Death date and age|1992|Jan|1|2011|October|11}} --> With MM that indicates two digits and so forth. MagnoliaSouth ^(talk) 11:53, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Citizenship, Ethnicity and Nationality

Isn't it redundant to have both "Citizenship" and "Nationality" in the infobox as they are practically the same thing? Also, one might argue that "Ethnicity" can also be synonmous with "Citizenship" and "Nationality". I suggest removing "Citizenship" and replacing it with something else, like the "Cause of Death" that is used on many other infoboxes, as many writers and authors have had notable causes of death. Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 18:53, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Citizenship, nationality and ethnicity really are different things. Consider, for example, Andy Warhol. -Mardus (talk) 19:24, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

TfD

Please apply {{TfD}}, per Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 December 17#Template:Infobox writer. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:38, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I've applied {{tfm|Infobox writer|Infobox person}} which is more appropriate. -- WOSlinker (talk) 22:34, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:35, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I notice ‹ The template (Infobox writer) is being considered for merging. › is appearing at the top of articles [1] Can you please arrange it so that the merge proposal is not advertised on the article? It's unsightly. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:55, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Maintenance tags are often objected to on the grounds they're unsightly, but they're part of what allows the project to function over time. The decision of whether to merge is, after all, of concern to those who maintain the articles on which this template is used, which in theory is the entire readership of those articles. --Pi zero (talk) 15:02, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

TfD

Please apply {{TfD}}, per Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 December 17#Template:Infobox writer. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:38, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I've applied {{tfm|Infobox writer|Infobox person}} which is more appropriate. -- WOSlinker (talk) 22:34, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:35, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I notice ‹ The template (Infobox writer) is being considered for merging. › is appearing at the top of articles [2] Can you please arrange it so that the merge proposal is not advertised on the article? It's unsightly. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:55, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Maintenance tags are often objected to on the grounds they're unsightly, but they're part of what allows the project to function over time. The decision of whether to merge is, after all, of concern to those who maintain the articles on which this template is used, which in theory is the entire readership of those articles. --Pi zero (talk) 15:02, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Time left till PD

There should be some artihmetic in code and a parameter with some (user-provided) values to show how much time is left till an author's most works are to enter public domain according to current laws and depending on country of first publication. -Mardus (talk) 19:31, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Sounds interesting. I'm peripherally aware some of this sort of thing is done at Wikisource.

• Where ought it to be placed in the infobox?
• What form should a notice take, in either state (before threshold or past threshold)?
• Does it require redundant data entry, or is there some way to extract what's needed from existing parameters?

--Pi zero (talk) 17:55, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

What needs to be extracted is the date (or year, if lacking a specific date) of death and user-supplied parameter values could, depending on country, be the years set in law, like death+50/70/95/100+1 year — some countries' laws specify that entry into public domain starts on the calendar year following the date of death.

A simple variant for a person with a date of death would be:

Copyright status: Works in public domain

then status could also be

Copyright status: Public domain for works first published in Country

If the copyright status for works is not public domain, then:

Copyright status: Public domain in XX years for works published in Country

(Some countries do not employ the rule of the shorter term.)

The wording could perhaps be made even more compact.

First I thought of a line or lines showing whether an author's works are in general already PD by way of the author being dead for this many cycles, or not...

A timer would be more fun :>

-Mardus (talk) 20:29, 8 January 2012 (UTC)