Template talk:Infobox writer/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Visible website address please?

Many infoboxes show the website address explicitly rather than just providing a link (see Nick Clegg, Beatles, City of Leeds as a collection of examples). This is more useful for anyone who has printed out the article. Could this infobox be changed to display the website address? If some writers have website addresses which are felt to be too ungainly to display, perhaps there could be an option (either by using a different field, or having a field to hold a yes/no parameter) to suppress it and display "official website", but in the vast majority of cases I suggest that the web address displayed would be more useful. PamD (talk) 18:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Chris, I am reverting your change until we can come up with a better solution to this. PamD's request is logical in some ways. She even states of the ungainly display. I am updating all the articles that use this infobox, and there are some really long addresses. Here is just one example I just happened upon whilst doing my changes (Michel Houellebecq): http://web.mac.com/michelhouellebecq/iWeb/Site/Blog/Blog.html

I simply do not feel that the infobox is the place for an website address explicitly. If a user wants the web address they simply click on the link. I can also point out a collection of examples that use this format. The reason for the link is to keep the infobox clean and neat. Also a printed copy just shows the current, at the time of viewing. A split second later, that explicit link can become obsolete, thus making that printed page obsolete. This change also changed a recently featured article. --_pete 21:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Michel Houellebecq (real name Michel Thomas)
Occupation	Novelist, filmmaker and poet
Website
http://web.mac.com/michelhouellebecq/iWeb/Site/Blog/Blog.html

Here is the example what happens to the page with website address explicit. --_pete 08:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, that looks fine to me in my browser. (Both Firefox and Safari 3 wrap the URL.) Secondly, other infoboxen (at least the ones I help to maintain) don't preformat, so this adds inconsistency. PamD's argument is another good reason for not preformatting. The counterargument is of course that it causes fallout in older browsers in existing infoboxen. It isn't difficult to fix these individually, by doing the formatting on individual articles as opposed to doing it in the template code. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• Suggestion: for the time being, a temporary new parameter (called "url") could be added for unformatted URLs. Then we can have template code like:

{{#if:{{{url|{{{website|}}}}}}|
! colspan="2" style="font-size:smaller; style="text-align:center; font-style:italic; border-top: 1px solid;" {{!}}
{{{url|[{{{website}}} Official website]}}}
{{!}}-
}}

Templates can then be migrated gradually to use "url", "website" can be deprecated and the attrubute then renamed again. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Chris, all my pc's are expanding this infobox to fit the url. None are wrapping it in any of my browsers (firefox, ie, maxathon). I am going to go get safari now and see what happens. The template is based on actor pl;us others which I have helped out with. That suggestion makes no sense to me. Why would we add another parameter like url and then deprecate website. I'm sorry that makes no sense to me. Enlighten me, please. _pete 18:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Just installed safari on 2 different computers (I do not own macs) and they both displayed the infobox enlarged to fit the url. _pete 18:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. Firefox 3 is definitely wrapping it here, anyway.

As for the attribute: the point is that the unwrapped version is superior for a few reasons (it allows individual articles to display the link as they wish) but you disagree with changing the default behaviour right now. So the best way to transition to an unwrapped version is to add a temporary alternative param (unwrapped) which can be used in the meantime until articles are adjusted to use it. After that we can deprecate the wrapped version and eventually remove it. Pretty standard approach. It won't break (or even change) anything unless articles are adjusted to use it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, Chris show me how. I will get back to you later. After installing safari, everything just bummed out my main system. I am going to have to restore before installing that software. Later _pete 23:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

What about the above solution. Still display the link but have a show/hide of the url. _pete 14:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Woo. Cool. Good enough for me. :) Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup 3711

I just finished changing all the old parameters to the new parameter in 3711 articles. I am running a final pass now to make sure they all got changed. I tried removing most of the old parameters that were no longer used, but I may have missed some. _pete 18:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposal move/change Pseudonym

1. Move Pseudonym display to appear below Born and Died.
2. Change the display name from Pseudonym to Pen name (not the parameter name).

--_pete 13:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Since no one commented on this proposal, I will be making the change shortly. (see WP:CON _pete 19:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The colour changes when the person dies?

Why? Flowerparty^☀ 02:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

It's a visual cue that can help the reader distinguish between someone who is still alive and someone who is not. So... why not? - JasonAQuest (talk) 04:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I prefer a minimalist approach when it comes to infoboxen. If we added every possible bell and whistle the box'd be a hundred yards long and striped like the hind leg of a psychedelic zebra. It would tell you everything that's in the article, but you'd only be able to extract all the 'information' if you'd actually written the template. Who needs a visual cue to tell them a person's dead? If they're dead the death date's right at the top of the page - that's a visual cue! It also strikes me as a pretty shaky colour code: "green = healthy, silver = expired"? In whose language? And if we've gone this far, why don't we add a third colour for the terminally ill? It just seems gratuitous to me. Why can't they all be silver? Flowerparty^☀ 11:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Why should they have any color at all? This feature adds neither length nor multiple colors to any article, so I don't see the harm. It's certainly no more "gratuitous" than including a colored icon in your sig. :) "Green=living, gray=dead" seems fairly intuitive to me (I didn't come up with it), but like any color code it becomes meaningful to people with familiarity. The fact that it provides no value to you personally is a weak argument against it. - JasonAQuest (talk) 13:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not arguing against it, necessarily, I'm just asking a question: why is this feature necessary? But if the best argument for having it is "why not?" then, yes, I think we should get rid. Flowerparty^☀ 18:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The template follows other template styles on wikipedia. Such as Template:Infobox actor just to name one. It is also implemented in other infoboxes throughout wikipedeia. pete 17:21, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

The fact that it's used elsewhere doesn't make it a good idea, necessarily. What other boxes do this? I've only noticed it here and on the actor one. Flowerparty^☀ 01:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Response, just to name a few: {{Infobox actor}} {{Infobox writer}} {{Infobox Artist}} {{Infobox Chef}} {{Infobox Chinese actor and singer}} [[User:Jeanenawhitney|pete]] (talk) 01:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Actually, the artist one doesn't change colour, as far as I can see. Or am I missing something? Either way, I'd call this more of a smattering than a wiki-wide phenomenon. And really, if all biography boxes went silver after death that would seem to make the rather odd implication that all living people are primarily defined by their profession while all dead people are primarily defined by their being dead. I still don't see why this is a feature worth having. Flowerparty^☀ 07:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The fact that it provides no value to you personally doesn't negate the fact that it clearly does provide value to others. - JasonAQuest (talk) 12:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Flowerparty's minimalist approach (in particular to the excellent point about how dead people are turned into a set apart, which, I'll add, leads to a ridiculous situation for wiki and a demeaning situation for the persons involved). It would seem that infoboxes are periodically subject to what I'm gonna have to call "whims". The more time people spend focusing on infoboxes, the more creative they get, and the more they forget what they are for. Tell me, when you started pondering this change in color, did you for a moment wonder who it would serve? A "visual cue" for whom? For the reader? not unless you are catering in a Pavlovian manner to people who either have ADD or are incapable of understanding that a person whose date of death is recorded in the very same infobox is no longer alive. To admins? presuming they can't handle the BLP tag on the talk page (which is the only use I can think of), since when do articles allow space or messages among editors? I mean, come on! As for the "value to others", allow me to be unconvinced: just because similar experiments were not reverted doesn't mean that people found them valuable; it could simply indicate that a bunch of editors slowly pushed a "solution" to a non-existing problem into one r two articles, and they either set a precedent because no one noticed, or proclaimed that "solution" to be ultimate and vital. Dahn (talk) 13:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

At the very least, the people who implemented this feature find it valuable. Or don't they count? For someone fretting about "demeaning" dead people, you demonstrate little regard for those who are both alive and contributing to the wiki. - JasonAQuest (talk) 15:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sure it counts for them, but I do not consider this a relevant argument in a discussion. And, yes, it does matter what demeans the subject of the article, since not doing that, as opposed to stacking up decisions that can only rely on personal preferences, is what wikipedia is about. Is this a Gordian knot situation? Then remove the color altogether, instead of proclaiming esoteric and (given the ambition of "colors as professions") corporatist criteria final. Dahn (talk) 17:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Color Bar for name

I changed the ugly dark green for a more palatable dark blue for the color bar behind the author's name. I hope no one minds. If it's a big deal, feel free to revert. Smatprt (talk) 05:40, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

The color dark green was selected to represent book bindings. In now way does that fugly blue represent books. Just because a user does not like the color is no reason to change it. If you don't like the color of the infobox then don't use it. pete 17:24, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow - kind of an odd response - if you don't like the color, then don't use infoboxes? Jeez. I would think the wiki way would be "if you don't like.....(fill in the blank)... then change it, and if the change is controversial, then start a discussion". I took that route and started a discussion. Regarding your reasoning (the color represents book bindings), I would like to offer some information. According to book binding history, the colors (which are generally mixed with thin glue) most commonly used in binding and edges are the primary colors of red, yellow and blue. Coloring the edges and binding of books is fairly old, the earliest known example being purple edges on a 4th century book. Green, however, did not seem to be a popular color for binding (especially a drab olive green!). So in response to your answer, I would ask you to revaluate your position. It would seem that one of the primary colors of red, yellow or blue is actually more appropriate. Thanks for hearing me out.Smatprt (talk) 06:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I object to the color change. Just because you can not wait to get any responses you go ahead and change it. When the changes were proposed to this template (see archive) there was a consensus. Just because a user complains you go and change it. This all would have not happened if user flowerparty did not take out the code that changes the display color for dead writers. --[[User:Jeanenawhitney|pete]] (talk) 01:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, but would it be too much to actually respond to the information I provided? As I have discussed above, dark green (actually a drab olive green) does not in fact represent book bindings. Since this is the case, why not change the color? if, historically speaking, red, yellow and blue were more commonly used in book binding, then why not change the color to one of those? Smatprt (talk) 04:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

You make me sound like a Scooby Doo sidekick. We're just being bold. Is this the discussion you mean? Hardly an unshakable endorsement of the colour scheme - there wasn't even agreement on this point. I actually quite like the green, but clearly some people find it ugly, and the same goes for the blue. How about we go back to no background colour until we can find something that no one finds repulsive. Flowerparty^☀ 07:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

This is probably one of the most inane conflicts I've seen yet on wikipedia. People, make it whatever color, just stick to something simple and move on! And if we're at the level of discussing trinkets, then it should be a cue that there might little left to add to the infobox, and that you should probably stop shoving things into it. Dahn (talk) 13:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Trust me, there have been much more inane conflicts; three of which I added myself. As for the color, green happens to be my favorite color, but I not only fail to see how the color used now is related in anyway to book blindings, but I also dislike the shade of green used. Why the hell are we even using a color for the writer if we don't do it for the {{Infobox Book}}?--十八 01:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Amen to that. Dahn (talk) 15:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

---

I've removed the colouring. It's non-standard aesthetic frippery which doesn't obviously aid the user, and it was added as part of a huge code dump which had many positive elements and was hardly endlessly discussed. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

How about we do the same as {{Infobox actor}} and use the same yellow if they are alive and the same gray if they are deceased?. Peachey88 ^{(Talk Page | Contribs)} 03:27, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Request

Hello. I would like to propose addition of "Citizenship" and "Ethnicity" parameter, same as in the {{Infobox Person}}. Infobox Writer template is systematically biased against Central and Eastern Europe for example. I will give you an example, there is a Hungarian poet from contemporary Romania. His citizenship is Romanian, his ethnicity Hungarian. He graduated only from Hungarian minority schools in Romania and writes his poetry in Hungarian about life of his community. Therefore current parameter "Nationality" is insufficient. Same applies for dozens of ethnic minorities throughout Southern, Central and Eastern Europe. Same applies for Jewish writers who often wrote in Yiddish about life of their communities but their citizenship was German, Polish etc. The ethnicity is often a very important factor in works of authors from this part of the world. I see no controversy in this proposal, both parameters are included in the Infobox Person and it is no problem. Cheers. - Darwinek (talk) 09:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Now, this is a valid and important request, which would serve a purpose in a lot of articles. I personally would ask for it to be filled only in cases where ethnicity and citizenship are not homonymous/synonymous (presumably, in the vast majority of cases, adding both would be repetitive and unnecessary, whereas cases such as those Darwinek mentions, it could prove vital for understanding and fair representation of the subject's cultural importance). Dahn (talk) 13:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I support the request. There are numerous such examples in Ukraine. Gogol was a Russian writer but his ethnicity was Ukrainian. Sholom Aleikhem was born in Ukraine, grew up in Imperial Russia and wrote in Yiddish. I feel that adding the language in which the writer writes is also beneficial. Bandurist (talk) 17:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with User:Darwinek and support the addition. Ostap 17:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree also. In Eastern Europe, citizenship and nationality are often two quite different things.Faustian (talk) 19:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think this could help deter some edit warring on some specific pages. Ostap 19:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not so sure if this is worth it. I can imagine some heated revert wars waged over the presumed nationality of some writers. If you have any doubts where it is headed, look at the language used in the edit summary over a link to a site that merely entertained the idea of Gogol not being entirely Russian. Don't we already have people patrolling the WP to revert Kyiv to Kiev? I have my fears how it is going to end up and this seems like a too petty thing to fight over. --Hillock65 (talk) 00:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

So what? If we want to minimize edit warring etc. we should cancel Wikipedia immediately. This is not an argument, reasonable editors will always watch for negative edits and keep articles clean, as was Stefan Banach case lately. As I said before, both parameters are included in Infobox Person and it does no harm. Non-inclusion of it is on the other hand explicitly discriminatory towards Central and Eastern Europe at least. IPs or disruptive users will always find their way to make trouble, no matter if several lines of code will be included to the infobox. - Darwinek (talk) 08:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. More content may include more controversial issues, but this shouldn't stop us from expanding this project.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 12:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Let me add my two cents here: as I discussed with Darwinek, where the ethnicity is subject to dispute, the parameter should simply not be filled. There is no requirement that all parameters be filled, otherwise we would have to be looking for Voltaire's web page and Seneca's signature. Dahn (talk) 15:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I've made proper changes. It should work OK now. - Darwinek (talk) 14:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Example of use can be found at Jan Kubisz article. - Darwinek (talk) 15:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Some missing fields

I see there are not fields for education, and alma_mater. Is there a reason? I am reasonably dissatisfied with the lack of continuity amongst info boxes particularly the ones pertaining to people. I will likely have to take up those concerns elsewhere, though. For now, why is educational history not pertinent to the life of a writer? ._-zro ^t_c 02:52, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I also think education is needed. Most writers have advanced education and alternative careers, and having no field for the former leaves a big gap in their bio. Its more important than relatives or spouses or children in most cases. Specifically James Tiptree Junior: she had mulitple careers and knowing her education indicates what level of importance they are. The current people infobox allows this, and the writer one should too. In fact shouldn't the writer box give at aleast all the fields from the people box? Aren't all writers people?

So,can an education field be added, please! Yobmod (talk) 13:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Both fields added as requested. - Darwinek (talk) 13:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Influences field broken

The "influences" field is broken, the heading is there but the contents isn't displayed. The "influenced" field seems broken too. 62.147.38.15 (talk) 20:58, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Change "Official website" to simply "Website"?

I would like to make this change, because many writers have websites that are not "official" in any clear sense. My particular motivation is John Michell (writer). The website www.johnmichell.com should probably be considered his, but it was actually set up originally by somebody else without his knowledge, and therefore probably shouldn't be called "official". I'm sure similar considerations apply to some other writers. If nobody objects, I will make this change in the near future. Looie496 (talk) 16:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Only the author's official site should be listed, if it's not their official site it shouldn't listed in the infobox and should be moved to the External Links section. Peachey88 ^{(Talk Page | Contribs)} 07:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Spouse(s), etc.

The parentheticals are ugly, in my opinion. Cant the infobox just say Notable works, spouses, etc? If people find that distracting for some reason, perhaps the template can take both spouse= and spouses= parameters, and use the presence of one or the other parameter to determine whether to include Spouse or Spouses in the output; same for the other (s) parameters. —johndburger 21:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Image should have alternate text

{{editprotected}}

As per WP:ALT the image in an Infobox Writer should have alternative text. Currently it doesn't. I suggest using the caption as the alt text.

This can be done by changing this:

[[Image:{{{image}}}|{{#if:{{{imagesize|}}}|{{{imagesize}}}|200px}}]]

to this:

[[Image:{{{image}}}|{{#if:{{{imagesize|}}}|{{{imagesize}}}|200px}}|{{{caption}}}]]

Comments? Eubulides (talk) 20:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

No further comments, so I've added {{editprotected}} to get an admin's attention. Eubulides (talk) 08:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. Alt text would be useful, but the caption isn't appropriate for this. In this case, users of screen readers would have to sit through the same text twice, which is just ridiculous. —Ms2ger (talk) 11:56, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The practice is common with other infoboxes, e.g., {{Infobox Scientist}}, {{Infobox Rocket}}. But if you don't like that practice, how about the following idea instead? Add an alt= parameter, to specify the alt text. It can default to the image name, so that if a call doesn't use the new "alt=" parameter, the behavior is the same as now. To do this, we can replace this:

[[Image:{{{image}}}|{{#if:{{{imagesize|}}}|{{{imagesize}}}|200px}}]]

with this:

[[Image:{{{image}}}|{{{imagesize|200px}}}|{{{alt|{{{image}}}}}}]]

(This change has taken the liberty of simplifying the imagesize part, too.) I've tested this in Template:Infobox Writer/sandbox with this test edit. Eubulides (talk) 17:40, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't really see what the file name would be good for and I'm afraid an alt parameter would hardly ever be used. Also, what would you put there?

For the imagesize parameter: IIRC, this causes problems if the parameter is present, but empty.

—Ms2ger (talk) 18:38, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) See, for example Philitas of Cos; the alt text for its infobox image reads "Antikythera philosopher.JPG", which is not that useful. What I would put there for Philitas of Cos is "alt= Bronze head of bearded man"; that is, the alt text should convey the gist of the image for readers who cannot see it. If you prefer to omit the file name, then how about this change instead? Change this:

[[Image:{{{image}}}|{{#if:{{{imagesize|}}}|{{{imagesize}}}|200px}}]]

to this:

[[Image:{{{image}}}|{{#if:{{{imagesize|}}}|{{{imagesize}}}|200px}}|{{{alt|}}}]]

I have tested this with this edit to the sandbox. Eubulides (talk) 19:26, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

That would indeed be good alt text, but I'm just afraid it won't be used correctly, or at all. I'm okay with this parameter, though. —Ms2ger (talk) 16:52, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks, I've renewed the {{editprotected}} request. Once it's in I'll add documentation that will advise people on correct use, as best I can. Eubulides (talk) 17:07, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Stifle (talk) 10:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Reactivated, the request is perfectly clear. —Ms2ger (talk) 16:29, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it's clear too, but here's a brief summary of the request if that helps: please see this edit to the sandbox, and please do the same edit to Template:Infobox Writer. Eubulides (talk) 16:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

So is it just a case of copying the sandbox onto the template? Stifle (talk) 19:40, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, though of course the sandbox's {{Template sandbox notice}} header should be omitted in the actual template. Eubulides (talk) 20:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:22, 28 October 2008 (UTC)