Jump to content

Template talk:Infobox person/Archive 23

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25→Archive 30

"Television"

Through what bizarre turn of events did there get added a "television" parameter, described as "Television programmes presented by or closely associated with the subject." Why not "Classic cars - Classic cars restored by the subject" or "Most disliked - vegetable most disliked by the subject." EEng (talk) 05:56, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

As with many weird and wonderful parameters in this template, it's the result of preparation for a template merger, in this case Template:Infobox chef. It occurred more than four years ago - see this edit; this discussion; first TfD; and second TfD. Despite those two TfDs, the merge doesn't seem to have been completed: I think that Pigsonthewing and Plastikspork should be made aware. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:51, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Infobox chef is now a wrapper for Infobox person - check the former's source code. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:14, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
The merger-prep explanation makes sense -- I was just wondering. WP templates are like old abandoned cemeteries, with kicked-over gravestones, enigmatic inscriptions recalling the days of yore, and so on. By the way, is it just accident that there are two porcine-related editors active on templates -- "Pigs on the wing" and "Plastics pork"? EEng (talk) 13:46, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Tough crowd, apparently. EEng (talk) 17:41, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
It's not nice to make fun of the camelcase-challenged. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 12:20, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Background color

Wikitable allows background color and it looks good. Why not in infobox? Abhi (talk) 08:13, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

to avoid turning it into a bag of skittles. Frietjes (talk) 16:25, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Change Notable work(s) to Notable work

I propose we change "Notable work(s)" (as in specific, titled creations) to the broader, yet inclusive, phrase "Notable work" (as in professional body of accomplishments). For authors/painters/etc., their "Notable work" is in the production of titled creations, so nothing changes there. For other people their "Notable work" might be something like a specific field of study, a discovery, a significant first, etc. - professional types of work which don't have a particular title associated with them. For example, Jonas Salk's "Notable work" would be the first polio vaccine" (a fact which currently uses the more generic "Known for" field). This change also has a minor benefit of saving 3 characters from one of the longer, more commonly used labels, which can often give more room to the data/value column in the infobox. I propose changing the default parameter name also to {{{notable_work}}} (but of course we will preserve support for the existing notable_works). --Netoholic @ 18:34, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Support - seems sensible. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:06, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
  • As presented this would seem to be redundant to "known for". Nikkimaria (talk) 01:28, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
    Can be cleared up in the documentation. "Known for" is a broad description of notability - "painting", "murder victim", "Winner of Big Brother", etc. "Notable work" is for important output from a profession - major books, works of art, discoveries, theories. -- Netoholic @ 02:14, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
    And the description you've just presented of "known for" overlaps with the description of "notable work" you presented above, as I said it would. "painting" = "professional types of work which don't have a particular title associated with them"; "Winner of Big Brother" = significant achievement. Better to keep the general "known for" and the specific "notable works", as this overlap is very likely to cause confusion if implemented. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:25, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
    Certain fields already overlap ("Occupation" also slightly overlaps with "Known for" if not documented well), but if you are confused its only because the documentation needs clarification. "Notable work" is for specific works/achievements of a professional nature. "Known for" is general statement of notability. I'm not just sure if its just you, or just me, but I think I've explained the difference several times in several ways. --Netoholic @ 02:40, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
    If you have, then perhaps the difference is not significant enough to warrant separate parameters. Notable works is more specific and more definable. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:35, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Given a need to accommodate the particular and the more general, perhaps the options to use "Notable works" (and see below) or "Notable work" and, separately, "Known for" are worth providing/maintaining? Sardanaphalus (talk) 00:10, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, looks better and is still understandable. We did the same for |librettist= in {{infobox opera}}. If the reader sees two listed, there are two, obviously, while "work(s)" and then only one item looks strange, see Robert Stoepel. Actually, I would prefer to drop "notable" also. Shouldn't everything in the infobox be notable? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:54, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
    • I think the issue with just Works (or Work) would be that people would tend to dump everything in there. I think also that "notable" has different meanings for WP editors than it does for readers. Someone just reading an article would see Notable work and know that its just the highlights. --Netoholic @ 06:22, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
      • Let's distinguish: I support "Notable work" instead of the present "Notable work(s)". My other remark should probably go below. Assumptions about tendencies to "dump" seem not helpful. Look at the above example: there is no dump but exactly one work. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:01, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

For labels such as "Notable work(s)" in this and similar infoboxes, has anyone else wondered whether a plain plural "s" rather than the s-in-brackets "(s)" might be more appropriate?:

  1. If there's only one item listed beside a label such as "Notable works" (i.e. without the brackets), it means the number of notable works (plural) is one, either in total or until more are added/accepted;
  2. Labels without the brackets would be two characters shorter, i.e. that bit less likely to linewrap or squeeze the space available for the righthand (data) side of the infobox;
  3. Labels with the brackets need some extra code to prevent the "(s)" being wrapped alone;
  4. (More subjective, I imagine:) The brackets tend to distract from the rest of the label and/or any other adjacent labels nearby.

Thoughts, please? Sardanaphalus (talk) 00:10, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Why are we using the term "Notable" in the parameter from the get-go? As an editing term of art in WP, we evaluate WP:Notable and notability in terms of developing or keeping articles as topics. Using the term in the infobox implies that the work meets WP notability standards, which is often not the case. With this in mind, I have two suggestions: 1. We limit the listing of "notable works" to those items which have a WP article. E.g., listing War and Peace in Tolstoy's article would be appropriate. 2. In the alternative, we use the term "noteworthy". This would allow for WP:Noteworthy items to be listed. – S. Rich (talk) 03:35, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

"(s)" in labels

The suffix "(s)" added to some of this template's labels – specifically, the brackets – mean these labels...

  1. need some linewrap management;
  2. tend to increase the amount of space left unused (by reducing the width available for data);
  3. can draw attention away from the rest of the template (e.g. "Notable work(s)" in {{Infobox philosopher}}).

Would anyone object to these brackets' removal (meaning the left/right bracket characters, retaining the "s")..? I don't believe there's any grammatical problem, as e.g. singular answers to enquiries framed in the plural are commonplace ("Do we have any examples?" "Only one, so far..."). Sardanaphalus (talk) 10:32, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Agent

This relatively complex and unstructured discussion has a number of facets. I will summarise the outcomes in what I think is a logical order, which is not the same as the order they emerge in the debate.

Q: Should the "agent" field be deleted from the template?
A: No. There is no consensus to make that change.

Q: Should the "agent" field be left blank?
A: In most cases, yes. There is quite a lot of discussion below about whether including a person's agency is the same as marketing. Wikipedia is attractive to marketers for all sorts of reasons but the community is rightly very resistant to the use of Wikipedia for marketing purposes. With people at the top of their professions this is not a concern. You can take it to the bank that anyone who has legitimate business dealings with, for example, Stephen King is not going to look up his agency in an encyclopaedia. With people who are less well-established, there is more of a tendency to list the agent's name, and I don't doubt that this is sometimes done for promotional reasons. This is to be discouraged.

Q: Should the "agent" field be blanked?
A: Not without discussion on the relevant talk page. There is no consensus below to go through all the instances of this template blanking the agent field.

Q: When should the "agent" box be used?
A: This is much less clear from the discussion. I would think that if we have an independent third party source that says who the agent is, then that information is relevant and there should be a presumption to include it.

I hope this helps.—S Marshall T/C 00:42, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

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.

There's some concern over the listing of agencies in info boxes on Talk:Tara Platt#Agent. Dmol (talk · contribs) says that agents in articles on actors should be removed per WP:NOT#DIRECTORY and WP:NOT#ADVERTISING. However, the template states that an agent should be listed if it has notable coverage. I think we need to start a centralized discussion here if anyone has thoughts about including or excluding agencies and come up with some sort of consensus about this. Thoughts? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:22, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

  • How about no mention unless the person (or their own company, etc) doesn't have a website? Sardanaphalus (talk) 22:37, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
    • I'm opposed to all inclusions of an agent in the info box. Even notable agents don't deserve a mention. There is an element of promotion with the inclusion, and it looks like many of the editors adding agent listings are only doing that and little else on Wikipedia. Should we also list an actor's hairdresser, make-up artist, voice coach, etc. Of course not, so why is the agent any different. As mentioned above, we are not WP:NOT#DIRECTORY or WP:NOT#ADVERTISING and inclusion seems to fall in to both categories.--Dmol (talk) 00:53, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to list an RFC so we can get more input. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:26, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Is listing a person's agency in the infobox relevant?

Should a person's agency be listed in the infobox? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:26, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Yes, if notable - If the agent or agency is already present on Wikipedia, then I think concerns over WP:NOT#DIRECTORY/WP:NOT#ADVERTISING are moot. Do we have a module function that can check for a missing wikilink and fail the parameter (also, fail if its url-linked)? Also, different WikiProjects often have their own guidelines for what subset of infobox_person parameters to use. Agent/agency is highly relevant for fashion models, but perhaps not desirable for authors. If there's a concern like the Tara Platt article above, I'd seek guidance from WP:ACTOR. --Netoholic @ 04:27, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
    WikiProjects develop manuals of style which guide articles within their subject area. These MOS often include what infobox fields to use and how to use them. This is not about OWN, its about guidance. -- Netoholic @ 18:39, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
  • No Images do not have credits (unless relevant to the subject), see WP:CREDITS. Why should the Wikipedia article for an actor be available to promote an agency? If reliable secondary sources have commented on the significance of an agent for a particular person, that can be mentioned with an explanation in the article. However, the infobox should not have a spam magnet added. Since when is the agent for an actor one of the key facts a reader needs to know? Johnuniq (talk) 04:59, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
  • No How is a person's agent/agency notable to their life? How many articles mention the info in the text and of those, how many have more than a brief sentence? How many NY Times obituaries (the in-depth ones which cover notable facets of a subject's life) mention an agent/agency? --NeilN talk to me 06:05, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes; this is a piece of data about a person which is likely to be of interest to our readers. It breaches neither WP:NOT#DIRECTORY nor WP:NOT#ADVERTISING. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:10, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
  • No, but barely. For actors, the agent is mostly a means of contact, which would be like including their phone number or other contact info, failing the WP:NOTWHITE test (though we do include websites –Hmmm). I suppose it might be useful in categories to research amount of work or awards by agency. I wonder, though, how often they change, and how many one-man agencies there are, which could make this unreasonable. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 13:56, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
  • No, The persons agent is not "key info" - if there is any reason, at all, to mention them it should be in the body of the article. MarnetteD|Talk 16:34, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
  • No, for the reasons stated above. Promotional, advertising, directory, and not key info, all apply here. --Dmol (talk) 06:57, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
  • No - Agency isn't really needed and its only purpose here would be to advertise them. –Davey2010 • (talk) 04:32, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes inasmuch as the general rule of thumb is that more information is better than less when it is relevant, and such information is relevant. Wikipedia attempts to be encyclopedic, and people who come to the pages are doing research. It is better to provide as much information as possible, reduce people's research efforts. Damotclese (talk) 16:39, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
    • How is such information a key fact? I would hope that all info in a biography is relevant to the subject - that doesn't mean every factoid gets put into an infobox. --NeilN talk to me 16:46, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
      • Damotclese - Your reasoning would be adding non-notable info and we'd end up being like those supermarket tabloids about celebrities. As I asked earlier, should we also list an actor's hairdresser, make-up artist, voice coach, etc. There's no difference. --Dmol (talk) 19:23, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes it should have a field in the template. Using that field should be an MOS issue but the field should be available. An example would be baseball agent Scott Boras. Boras is notable and relevant enough to be mentioned and is often mentioned when a player is negotiating contracts, more so than other agents. Players that don't use Boras might not warrant inclusion based on notability of their agent. Not having a field removes the ability to include notable agents and agencies that are of interest to the reader. Usually, a notable agent is listed in the biography anyway and non-notable agents are not. Drew Rosenhaus is another one but for NFL football players. --DHeyward (talk) 12:04, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
  • No. What happens when they change agencies and nobody tells WP? Not relevant. Also, per WP:Advert, Promotional, directory. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:21, 18 July 2014 (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.

Notable parents only in infobox

Comments from previous discussion on SNUGGUMS talk

So, I remember this being an issue when Miley Cyrus was up for GA status but I do have to point out that it does say "Parents names, if notable". You had said in a edit summary ""Template:Infobox person" actually doesn't explicitly say not to list non-notable parents. Doesn't make sense to list one and not the other (if known) regardless of notability- many FA's list both parents/all children even if one or more is not notable". It does say "if notable", that's how it is for children, and siblings, I don't think parents should be an exception. Exceptions to the rule of course, like Meryl Streep, all but 1 of her children are notable so I don't mind that the one that isn't is in there, but in the terms of parents, why would a non-notable parent be in there? Nobody knows who they are so it doesn't really serve a purpose. I don't want to revert any edit of yours because I trust your judgement, but this is one thing that I'd like to converse about. LADY LOTUS • TALK 14:14, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

If listing only one parent, that somehow could potentially suggest it is the only parent known. For people like Sydney Chaplin, one could perhaps just list mother Hannah- while she said his father was Sydney Hawkes, she was declared mentally unstable and there were no records of the two marrying or anything. Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:58, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Yea but if the parents are in the early life section, then wouldn't it clear that kind of thing up? Always, there is an exception to the rule so wouldn't Sydney Chaplin be an exception but the rule is only notable parents? LADY LOTUS • TALK 18:05, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Hannah Chaplin has her own page. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:10, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Ok then I'm confused at what your point is lol LADY LOTUS • TALK 19:45, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
The point is that listing only one parent could potentially suggest he/she is the only parent known. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:47, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Known as in not knowing who their father or mother is? But I'm saying that if the parents are stated in the early life then wouldn't that take that assumption away? LADY LOTUS • TALK 20:13, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, as in not knowing mother's/father's identity. Just seems incomplete to list one and not the other when both identities are known. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:16, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

That's what I'm saying though is that template says list only notable, not known, parents. They mean like parents who are independently notable and have their own page. I think if the person doesn't know who their father or mother is that should be addressed in the article. LADY LOTUS • TALK 20:20, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I take "Names of parents, if notable" as only list them in the infobox if they are notable, like they have their own article. Just like relatives and children. Non-notable parents shouldn't be in there because what's the point when nobody knows who they are? LADY LOTUS • TALK 11:46, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Not everyone who is notable has their own article, yet. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:03, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Not yet, if they are by Wiki standards to be notable then by all means. But if an actors mom is a teacher, I don't think she should go in the infobox. LADY LOTUS • TALK 12:09, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Infobox_person/Archive_23&oldid=1138526560"