Template talk:Infobox person/Archive 3

'Religious belief' field

I have renamed it 'religion'. I don't see the need for the length, nor any distinction between the two. Ohconfucius 01:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The two can be distinct, depending on what meanings you take for 'religion' and 'religious'. If 'religious' is taken to mean 'concerning religion' then strong atheism is a religious belief, but it is certainly not a religion. If a person believes in a god but doesn't ascribe properties to it, he has religious belief. But not everybody would agree that he has a religion.

On another note (and this applies whether the field is 'religion' or 'religious belief'), what value should be given for weak atheists? Ilkali 10:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a good compromise that right now the field is called religion but displayed correctly as religious beliefs. Since all religions need to be taught to a person (except self-proclaimed prophets) because that person subscribes to a religion, I think weak atheists are as atheist as strong atheists. But none would suffice. Imagine Reason (talk) 22:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It should be "regligious belief" instead of "religion" because "religion" excludes individuals that don't have a religion such as athiests or agnostics. QuirkyAndSuch (talk) 07:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with footnote

This edit causes the infobox not to display and makes a mess of the reference list. Please advice! __meco 08:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are closing the cite with <ref/>, where it should be </ref>. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 09:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Silly me.. __meco —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 09:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flags in infobox

User:MarnetteD is removing flags in infoboxes based on a policy suggestion: Wikipedia:Use of flags in articles, without consensus. Anyone have thoughts about using the flags in the infoboxes, I at first didn't like the flags, but removing them here and there, rather than having a consistent policy isnt good. It alters the look and feel of Wikipedia. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 20:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FLAGS is still a proposal, but it does have several good points. If you check the above discussion on citizenship and nationality, you can certainly see that there are issues. Unfortunately, there is no current "look and feel" on the use of flags to really alter as it would appear that some editors are in love with the icons and others hate them. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 20:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These days it's designated a guideline. Beware alarmism with regard to WP:MOSFLAG; some editors seem to think that "removal of an inappropriate flag icon" or "removal of flag icons from birth/date lines in infoxes" equates to "SOMEONE'S TRYING TO CENSOR FLAGS OFF OF WIKIPEDIA!!!" It just isn't the case. Some abuses and misuses of flags in infoboxes are dreadful, as is their overuse. Some thoughtful uses of them are arguably helpful to readers. There is no consensus to never ever use flag icons in infoboxes, nor any consensus that they should always or usually be used. As a result some editors will prefer to add them, and others to remove them, and that's not a Template:Infobox person problem not a Wikipedia:Manual of Style (flags) problem, it's an editors coming to consensus at an article as per normal problem. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excess space?

Beats me where it is in that much code, but an extra carriage return seems to have snuck into the template somewhere near the beginning such that dablink/cleanup templates can't be separated from the start of the article without there being extra white space between the two. Any chance of someone who knows more than me finding and fixing that? -Bbik^★ 21:35, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the problem. Which template are you trying to use? --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 22:00, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vuk Branković has extra space, Constantine Dragaš would've, but I left out the division I always put between header material and the start of the article itself. I've never seen this issue before, so I'm a bit confused as to how it's popped up now, but... And those two templates and a couple others I experimented with (don't honestly remember which anymore) all caused the same result, though none of them seem to have any extra space at the end of the code. -Bbik^★ 16:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Vuk Branković article looks just fine, as of this viewing. The whitespace betweent the dab template and the rest of the article is there beause there is a blank line in the source code between them, and exactly the opposite is the case with the Constantine Dragaš article. There appears to be nothing wrong with the infobox code. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 19:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, a simple fix. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 19:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Siblings

I still think we need a siblings field. "Relatives" is good for aunts and uncles, and grandparents, but for dynastic families, a field for siblings would be appreciated. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be a little concerned about that; many editors will assume it applies across-the-board and add non-notable people to infobox after infobox. The "relatives" field itself could also present this problem. If it is properly documented to discourage this, I wouldn't have any objection; I can see how it could be of use on articles like Prince William of Wales. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 19:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Signature field

So what is actually supposed to be the encyclopedic purpose of this? Seems like trivia to me, with the sole exception of John Hancock for an obvious reason. Within the context of WP:BLP it is a privacy invasion. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 19:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would be a privacy violation if the signatures were being taken from, say, private letters. But from what I've seen, it's usually from a very public document. For instance, Image:GWB_signature_2007.jpg, the current signature at George W. Bush, is from a veto; this is obviously a public, official document. Such cases are not a privacy problem. As for encyclopedic value, it's interesting for the same reason the portrait is interesting, and doesn't take up much space. Superm401 - Talk 09:34, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? A portrait is interesting because it illustrates the article, about a human being, with an image of what that human being looks like. A signature of a living person does no such thing, and is simply a vector for forgery. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 23:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Illustrating how a person signs is also interesting to some people. It's not a vector for forgery. Again, we're only relying on documents that are already publicly available. There is nothing illicit are untoward here. Superm401 - Talk 06:46, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Born

If a person were born in New York on a hospital but his/her parents lived in Utah and they got there as soon as it was over, should it really say that the person were born in New York then? --212.247.27.48 17:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. When I was born, I "came knocking early" while my parents were traveling through Texas on their way home to New Mexico. Just one more day and I would have been born in NM. But my birthplaces is, as a matter of obvious fact and official record (i.e. reliable sources), TX. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:59, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Padding

It seems like the template could use a little more padding/margin between the image and the caption. On, William_Clay_Ford,_Jr., the image appears much too close to the caption. Would anyone object to this being tweaked? Superm401 - Talk 09:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, an additional 0.3em or so of vertical whitespace might be inorder. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 23:00, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although jpg files are central svg files are shifted to the left. Snowman (talk) 23:37, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Example? On the original issue, here are some comparisons:

This has line-height 1.25em, same as the template currently uses.

This has line-height 1.5em. Note the spacing between lines also increases.

This has line height 1.25em, with .25em padding on the caption.

A decision here should be consistent with other infoboxes. More centralized discussion? –Pomte 00:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a note at Category_talk:Infobox_templates#Padding and Template_talk:Infobox#Padding directing people here. Feel free to mention it in other locations. Superm401 - Talk 05:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As for the actual markup, it's currently:

<tr><td colspan="2" style="font-size:8pt;text-align:center;padding:4pt;line-height:1.25em">[[Image:{{{image}}}|{{#if: {{{image_size|{{{imagesize|}}}}}} | {{{image_size|{{{imagesize}}}}}} | 225px}}|]]<br />{{{caption|}}}

which renders something like (depending on options):

The caption is here.

Rather than the line height suggestion, I recommend:

<tr><td colspan="2" style="font-size:8pt;text-align:center"><div style="padding-bottom:1em; padding-top:1em">[[Image:{{{image}}}|{{#if: {{{image_size|{{{imagesize|}}}}}} | {{{image_size|{{{imagesize}}}}}} | 225px}}|]]</div>{{{caption|}}}

The caption is here.

In other words, I'm removing the line-height, the padding in the td, and adding a div around the image and specifying a small amount of bottom padding. There are multiple ways to accomplish this, and I'm not a CSS expert. However, I definitely think there needs to be some change in this regard. Superm401 - Talk 06:27, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added padding-top:1em in the test to compensate for the removal of padding:4pt. Superm401 - Talk 06:43, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, note that I suggest removing the <br/>. Superm401 - Talk 06:30, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Padding cont.

I have made the change to the sandbox version of the template, and it looks okay to me at Template:Infobox_Person/testcases#Sandbox_version_of_template. Compare to Template:Infobox_Person/testcases#Live_version_of_template. What do people think? Superm401 - Talk 06:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When the jpg is replaced by an svg (for example the image "replace this image male.svg") the image is not central but to the left. I tested it with this svg in the sandbox and then page pressed "show preview". Or have a look at an example of a svg in an person infobox - on the "Anita Roddick" page. Snowman (talk) 10:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the pgj images, I think one caption is too near the image and one is too far from the image. Snowman (talk) 10:49, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why svg and jpg images would be treated differently. Do you mean the person's name is too far, and the image caption is too close? I considered that, but wanted to get more input before further tweaking. Superm401 - Talk 07:47, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was not looking at the name at the top: In my opinion:

Top image: persons name is too far away from the image. Caption is too far from the image.
Lower image: persons name is in about the correct position, but it is not exactly midway between the top border and the upper margin of the image. Caption is too near the image.
Can you see what I mean about the svg position from some additions to the sandbox? This svg image is shifted to the left with its caption. Snowman (talk) 10:41, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SVG

I have made a testcase for the SVG issue at Template:Infobox_Person/testcases#SVG_test. Superm401 - Talk 08:00, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's actually because of Template:Image class. Superm401 - Talk 08:11, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is ok for other infoboxes: see "Jung Chung", an example of infobox writer. Snowman (talk) 14:14, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Title -> Title(s)

Is it possible to change "title" into "title(s)"? For example the official name of the Dutch Princess Alexia is "Princess Alexia of the Netherlands, Princess of Orange-Nassau". So, she has two titles. Thanks! Demophon (talk) 20:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or; a switch to select title or titles or simply add a new field for titles. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 23:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand... :-S Demophon (talk) 05:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be more aesthetic to show "title" for one entry and "titles" for multiple entries; the use of "title(s)" is just not as visually pleasing. There is a switch command that can be used to select between "titles" and "titles". --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 12:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So..., where is the switch command and how to use it? Demophon (talk) 12:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Combining desires for the aesthetic and the plural suggests using "Titles" to me, regardless of whether or not a particular person has one or more titles. Sardanaphalus (talk) 00:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To do this, change the infobox code:

|label13 = Title

To:

|label13 = {{#switch:{{{titles|}}} |yes=Titles |Title}}

To show "Titles", simply include |titles=yes. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 13:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]