Template talk:Infobox writer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Honorifics[edit]

I've added |honorific_prefix= and |honorific_suffix= parameters, like those in {{Infobox person}} and many other biographical infoboxes. This improves data granularity. See Antonia Fraser for an example of them in use, and deploy them in articles you edit. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:21, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Forcing field bloat on us without consensus? I have no particular objection to the field, but you should have asked first. --Pi zero (talk) 17:13, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Adding mother and father as fields[edit]

Can we have fields for Mother and Father, instead of keeping them in relatives? --రహ్మానుద్దీన్ (talk) 03:35, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

What would be the advantages of this? I can see disadvantages: It's more fields when fewer would do, and because it's so specific it encourages including detailed information regardless of whether that information is significant. --Pi zero (talk) 13:07, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
We should at least have a "parents" field for the sake of consistency. If Template:Infobox person has parents, why shouldn't writers have the field as well? Little inconsistencies like this are really annoying. -Zanhe (talk) 02:41, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Why should infobox person have the extra fields? It's just field bloat. They probably think they have some reason for it; generic infoboxes like that cultivate field bloat; but at least we don't have to make the mistake of spreading the bloat where it isn't needed. --Pi zero (talk) 14:26, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Yep, these inconsistencies are annoying. It should be removed from infobox person. :) Garion96 (talk) 17:54, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Embedding as a module[edit]

A colleague has embedded this template in {{Infobox person}}, on Chris D.. As can be seen, that doesn't work properly, unlike the embedded {{infobox musical artist}}, directly above it in the infobox on that page.

Please can someone modify this infobox, to make it embeddable in the same manner? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:13, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 16 April 2014[edit]

There's many more languages than those that have an ISO 639-1 code, so this use of {{Check ISO 639-1}} is inappropriate. For all the language tags that can go in lang, see the IANA language subtag registry. Change is in the sandbox. — lfdder 19:13, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: ping. Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:50, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
@Mr. Stradivarius:. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:02, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: I pinged you since you added that check in the first place. Are you okay with getting rid of it? Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:11, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
I gather he's seeking Mr. Stradivarius' advice on it -- he wrote {{Check ISO 639-1}}.— lfdder 21:18, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Indeed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:43, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
No, it should be fixed, not removed, Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:43, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
My advice is that we need to add more language codes to {{Check ISO 639-1}} (and probably rename it). Lfdder's work at Module:ISO 639 name/data should be useful here. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 22:06, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm looking into adding lang tag validation to Module:ISO 639 name, but it'll probably be some time. (It can be 'improperly' be used for validation by using formal and dataset=iana and checking for output.) — lfdder 22:16, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: So why has this been marked as answered? — lfdder 20:50, 17 April 2014 (UTC) It's not acceptable to reject all codes other than ISO 639-1 until such time that it's 'fixed' (which probably won't be any time soon). — lfdder 20:52, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Per the template's documentation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:59, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
How does the documentation address this? — lfdder 21:47, 17 April 2014 (UTC) @Pigsonthewing: do I have to ping you every time? — lfdder 12:23, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
What part of "consensus should be obtained before the template is added" is unclear to you? You have to stop reactivating this request, per the template's documentation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:15, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
You should put some effort into what you write. I thought you meant this template's documentation. — lfdder 14:22, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

1) I've removed mention of this parameter from the doc, so that -- if anything -- people don't get tripped up by it in the future. 2) I've set answered back to 'no', 'cause this hasn't actually been answered. It's not your call to make; it'll be answered when we've agreed. — lfdder 12:53, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I've restored the parameter to the doc page. Don't remove documentation for a parameter just because you don't like the way it works. As Pigsonthewing and Mr. Stradivarius said, they're going to fix it, not remove it. Jackmcbarn (talk) 13:32, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
A warning: I have several other things on the go at the moment, so it might be a while before I get round to fixing this. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 13:44, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
.... it DOESN'T work. Jesus Christ. I remember why I gave up last time I tried to do anything with templates. And I'm flipping it back in the hope that someone sane will come along. Also, {{Check ISO 639-1}} will never work for this purpose unless it gets rewritten from the ground up as a lang tag validator. Language tags are a lot more than just the 639-1/3 codes. — lfdder 14:05, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Please see WP:NPA. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:15, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
I meant sane, as in someone who knows a thing or two about language codes, for a start. — lfdder 14:23, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Will ANYBODY address the fucking issue? — lfdder 11:52, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Please don't make the documentation deliberately not match how the template actually works. The issue has been addressed. The check will stay, but will be fixed. Consensus seems to be that it should not be removed in the interim. Jackmcbarn (talk) 16:13, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
So there's me saying it should go and Pigsonthewing saying it should stay, which makes....consensus that it should stay? You must be pulling my leg. Mr. Stradivarius has said that he won't be fixing it any time soon, and I've explained why it can't just be 'fixed' anyway. There's not one thing Pigsonthewing has said that makes me think he understands the situation. He decided that it should stay without as much as having a single word with me. — lfdder 16:32, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
No, there's you saying it should go, and me, Mr. Stradivarius, and Pigsonthewing saying it should stay. And stop making the doc page deliberately incorrect. I've already reverted you once and you've reverted me back. I'm not going to revert again, but I encourage you to do so. Jackmcbarn (talk) 16:37, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
You didn't say that before now. It seems to me Mr. Stradivarius is sitting on the fence, but I might be wrong. Not as bad as making using language tags 'deliberately incorrect', is it? I'm not reverting it, but thank you for encouraging me. Give me a shout when you decide you want to discuss the issue. — lfdder 16:45, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Since I started this I think I should comment. The system of applying language codes to the native name in infoboxes is not unique to Infobox writer. Many other infoboxes need to do the same function. However, this template seems to implement the system in a unique way. Other infoboxes do not validate the input. They work on the basis or rubbish in, rubbish out and leave it to the editors to input the correct codes. Validating the input is a basic of computer programming and so it is commendable that the implementation here tries to do that. On the other hand, writing two different lines of code to do two identical jobs when you could write one line to do the same job twice, is bad practice. All the infoboxes should be running this function off a common code. It shouldn't be left to one or two coders on this template to do the task. Language codes are complex and the reason other infoboxes don't validate them is that doing so is not a trivial coding task. Other infobox template contributors should be pinged to assist and a single common validation function created. In the mean time please try to be civil, there's never any reason to use the f word outside the article of that name. Rincewind42 (talk) 15:13, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

I want and try to be understanding, but I do get annoyed when people insist that something should be done this or that way, all the while being unwilling to engage in discussing the issue. It's glaring WP:OWNership behaviour. This is not the only infobox that uses {{Check ISO 639-1}} for this purpose. — lfdder 17:33, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
And that behaviour continues. — lfdder 12:30, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Since no one's provided any reasoning for the addition of {{Check ISO 639-1}} and they've refused to respond after it's been explained to them how foolish it is, I ask that it's reverted. The change is in the sandbox. — lfdder 18:23, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I'll leave this for another templateeditor or admin to look at. Jackmcbarn (talk) 18:35, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
What you should do is revert it. Page protection isn't an excuse for circumventing consensus-building processes. I've had about enough with you lot. — lfdder 18:40, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
You requested a change. The burden is on the requester to demonstrate consensus for controversial changes, which this one clearly is since multiple people have opposed it. Jackmcbarn (talk) 18:47, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
I've requested a change because it's the only way the interface allows me to go about it. I'm not the one who made the addition. The burden is on whoever's added it to explain why it should stay. And he's made no effort to explain anything at all. (And neither have you.) In other words, if this template were unprotected, I'd have reverted the change and I'd have been completely in the right, and those in favour of having it there might've tried to explain why. In other words, I saw this shit coming from miles away when the template editor usergroup was first proposed. — lfdder 19:09, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. There still doesn't seem to be a consensus reached here. Please achieve a consensus before using this template to request the edit be made. Thanks. — {{U|Technical 13}} (tec) 22:19, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
@Technical 13: there needs to be a consensus for adding it in the first place. There isn't one. Again, if this template were unprotected I'd have reverted the change and I'd have been in the right. Pigsonthewings and his enablers are, in essence, abusing their privileges. — lfdder 22:28, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
  • lfdder, my reading of the discussion here is there is consensus for the check added by Andy to stay, and the burden of consensus to remove that check is on you good sir. I see that you were working on a module that would improve the way the check worked, has that been completed? — {{U|Technical 13}} (tec) 22:32, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
We're abusing our privileges by not using them? Jackmcbarn (talk) 22:34, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, you are. Those with power carry the burden of it. — lfdder 22:39, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Right then, so where templates are concerned, we've thrown WP:BRD right out the window? No, it's not been completed, and the longer this farce continues, the more my interest in completing it wanes. If the people here can't appreciate how flawed this present implementation is, I very much doubt they'd appreciate my fixing it. — lfdder 22:36, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
We all agree it's not ideal right now. We just don't agree that your fix is better. Jackmcbarn (talk) 22:49, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
It's way worse than 'not ideal'. You do realise that the way it is now means we can't tag text with any of the 7k-something languages that are part of 639-3? Part 1's only got about 150-odd languages (many of which are 'macrolanguages'). We can't even tag Ancient Greek, for God's sake. — lfdder 23:09, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
....aaand silence. If you're incapable of discussing the issue, why do you hold that it should be kept? This is quite frustrating. — lfdder 00:13, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
I agree that the status quo is bad. I disagree that letting things be entered willy-nilly in the language field is better. Instead of arguing this ad nauseam, why not help fix the module to check other language codes? Jackmcbarn (talk) 00:44, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
I obviously disagree that it's better to omit 7k languages 'cause someone somewhere might plug in the wrong code. Instead of arguing this ad nauseam, why not help fix the module to check other language codes? Because a half-arsed fix is not the answer -- some thought needs to go into it. For a start, do we validate codes or tags? If we choose to validate codes, how do we let people who know what they're doing enter tags? Should we validate input at all? Why not go for maintenance cats? What's the scope of it -- where else is it gonna be used? — lfdder 01:00, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Good questions. @Pigsonthewing: @Mr. Stradivarius: thoughts? Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:02, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
I think we should remove the check until it's actually fit for purpose. I wasn't aware of all these issues when I first made {{Check ISO 639-1}}, and I actually removed it from quite a few infobox templates after Andy first added them when I realised it was causing errors on pages with perfectly legitimate language codes. The best thing would be to have a module that correctly validates the codes, but no check is better than the current situation where the majority of language codes are not recognised. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 06:04, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Agree it should be removed. I don't know how exactly the check module works, but if it is blocking entries as obviously necessary as "Ancient Greek", then it's doing far more harm than any good it might possibly be doing. Fut.Perf. 06:58, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
It's also used in Template:Infobox artist, for the record. — lfdder 10:43, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Can anyone remove it from there too then? — lfdder 03:34, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 5 June 2014[edit]

Please add support for |years_active=, present in {{Infobox person}} and applicable to most of these professional derivatives. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 11:26, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done and updated the documentation to correspond. Uncontroversial addition, and doesn't affect currently applied templates. —cyberpower ChatOnline 11:55, 5 June 2014 (UTC)