Template talk:Infobox actor/Archive 4

message: Found this template when I noticed the fabulous awards change to the actor infobox. Nice job, Kudret abi! My question is this: we've got the Goya Awards in the template, so how's about Ireland's film and TV awards, the IFTAs? I know there's a generic area at the bottom, but it would be nice for Irish awardwinners' infoboxes to have an IFTA section with its own heading. Since the whole shebang is now collapsible, one more category isn't much of an issue, and it would remain blank for non-Irish actors anyway.  --Melty girl 15:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Melty girl, thank you for the praise, but I could not have done it without Rossrs and PC78, so I would like to acknowledge them too. As to your suggestion, if you have read my previous comments, my ultimate goal is to figure out a way to remove all the specific awards fields, leaving only , and then have people list everything there by the help of another template to do the formatting. However, this does not seem to be very straightforward, will present some challenges, and consume some time. So based on the current version of the infobox, I think it would be unfair to oppose the inclusion of a major award from Ireland while for instance, having three or four categories from USA. -- Kudret abi 20:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks -- can you add it to the template or assist me in my first edit of that type? Also, I now did see the part about the inner template for award ceremony, and I think that's a great solution, though it does present challenges. I'm curious to see what happens (being a relative newbie). --Melty girl 21:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Melty girl, I added IFTA Awards to the template for you. As you said, the inner template would be a good solution, but I am not sure at this point how to incorporate it into the existing structure. One possibility would be to do as PC78 suggested, and introduce this field as an alternative to the specific fields but then perhaps people would argue why some awards have specific fields and some don't. Also, since you communicated interest in doing edits to this template and asked for assistance, I would suggest that you have a look at Help:Templates, and also Help:Table, which will provide insight into the inner workings of templates and tables. I hope this helps, best wishes, Kudret abi 05:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you and thank you! --Melty girl 05:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: IFTA Awards

message: I know there is plenty of discussion above about removing various fields from the infobox, but would anyone object to the addition of an "Occupation" field? I certainly think it would be useful to have this, given that the infobox is used for more than just actors (film directors, producers, etc), and also because many actors aren't just actors. Any thoughts? PC78 13:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would not have an objection to this field. As you said, it would distinguish between actors, producers, directors, etc. -- Kudret abi 21:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've gone ahead and added it, since I don't anticipate any great controversy over its inclusion. PC78 21:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it could be quite useful, given how much multi-tasking seems to happen with performers, and it's good that you've given a clear description on the template page, and examples that are clearly entertainment-business related.  It'll be interesting to see if any non-notable professions get added.  Waitress, receptionist, mortuary assistant etc :-)  Rossrs 22:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the addition very much. Thanks! --Melty girl 22:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Occupation" field? 

message: There is now an outdated version of this infobox template on the main project page. Seems like it should either be updated, or perhaps preferably, it should be replaced with a link to this article so that it can not go out of date again. --Melty girl 16:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, it would be best if you can provide a link to Template:Infobox actor from there. Best, -- Kudret abi 20:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right--be bold, no? Done. --Melty girl 22:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Project page outdated for infobox

message: Discussion above indicates that nominations should not be included in the Awards section of the infobox. The practice is, however, widespread. One example: Johnny Depp, where it's very carefully set up. The only way I can think of to communicate the intention against nominations' inclusion would be to rename the section "Awards won". Otherwise, I think some of us will be removing nominations from infoboxes, and then others will come by and revert or re-add. Thoughts? --Melty girl 02:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Awards nominations

message: I should like to make the proposal that in cases such as the Template :Infobox actor, where a small number of editors have removed the notable roles field from the Infobox, which is on thousands of articles that a notice should be placed on Wikipedia's Main Page, asking everyone for their views - a poll.
It is totally wrong that the small number of editors who visit this Talk Page should take decisions on articles used by the vast majority of registered editors. There are more than 5 million registered editors on Wikipedia.
If there is a proper poll that approves this change then popular consent can be claimed, if, however, there is no poll then the decision to remove the Notable Roles field will simply be seen as the peremptory action of a small, unrepresentative clique.
Vorrock 14:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want to add something to the main page, then that's something you need to discuss there, not here. In any case, you should also bear in mind that polling is not a substitute for discussion. It would be more helpful if you tried to address the concerns that led to the removal of this field; "I like it" isn't a good enough reason to keep something. I would certainly welcome a wider debate on this issue, though. PC78 14:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Well said, PC78. I must add that it is inaccurate to state that changes to this template affect "articles used by the vast majority of registered editors". Actors and filmmakers are but one corner of the vast Wikipedia universe. Not even all actors and filmmakers use this infobox template -- yesterday, I noticed that there's a different infobox for comedians, and there are perhaps other specialist templates I haven't seen yet. It seems odd to suggest that this relatively small detail be discussed on the main page. Talk pages for specific items are the places to discuss things about those specific items. Perhaps a notice could have been placed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers that changes to this infobox were under consideration, so that those interested could have come over here to join the discussion, but it wasn't a must, and the main page was not the place to discuss this infobox. I think the low level of disagreement registered here about the changes, and the lack of substantive arguments offered in support of the removed elements by those who disagree, reflect the fact that most editors of actor and filmmaker pages either agree with the changes or don't care. Also, while only a few editors worked on the changes, prior comments from many editors reflect the fact that many were dissatisfied with the previous version of the infobox. --Melty girl 20:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal, poll, Main Page

message: i have a suggestion. since this template is being used for not only actors, but directors and producers as well, i believe it should be changed to "Infobox hollywood" and the fields should facilitate all the major figure types in the motion-picture industry. I think the "occupation" field is a good start, but it could go much further. --PopeFauveXXIII 04:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This has already been suggested -- please refer to the section broadening_template_scope above. I share your concerns, but I wouldn't want to rename the template "Hollywood," because it's too America-centric. Additionally, I would want to encompass theater professionals in the (re)name, unless they already have a different infobox. --Melty girl 04:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

text: As Melty girl stated, this renaming idea had been brought up before. I agree that the infobox is not only for actors but for anyone in the movie industry. I also agree with Melty Girl that "hollywood infobox" would not work as the infobox is not only for people in the USA -- Kudret abi 05:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I'll agree with the others that "Infobox Hollywood" is unacceptable, but I would support a move to the aforementioned "Infobox film bio". As for widening the scope of this infobox, it's been suggested that both  and  be merged into this one, though I don't know if this proposal has had much discussion yet. PC78 10:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Infobox film bio" is still limiting.  It would be great to broaden the infobox to include other entertainment related occupations, but this name doesn't allow for theatre professionals per Melty girl's suggestion.  An actor is an actor regardless of the medium, so to create an infobox that excludes some actors, doesn't seem exactly right.  I'd been thinking maybe a general "entertainment industry professional" (I know that's too wordy) type name might be heading into the right direction, but that creates a new problem of including musicians etc.   So, although I dislike my own suggestion, I think that kind of general, non-specific wording is going to work better than something that strictly limits the field, such as "film".  This may be more difficult that it appears at first glance.  Rossrs 13:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, you can have multiple variables that yelid the same result. So, you could have "entertainment industry professional" as one and the shorthand version could be "ind pro" which is actually a commonly used term in the industry. I disagree with changing the name to hollywood, but I think it does need something to give. --lincalinca 14:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's remember that this is only a template and not an article, so it doesn't matter too much what we call it. I don't think any name necessarily makes it inclusive or exclusive, so I'd rather stick with what we've got than make a switch to something equally problematic. PC78 15:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I've commented on that elsewhere. Concensus here has found fields such as "height" and "weight" to be too trivial for inclusion; to merge this infobox into another where all these and more are present would not be an improvement, IMHO. PC78 16:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then such exclusions should be noted in the template documentation, and/ or on the relevant project page(s). Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 16:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Such exclusions would be difficult to enforce at best. It's my experience that if the field is there, then people will use it regardless. (Or am I being too cynical?) I'm really not sure that a "super" infobox with 100 or more fields is really the way to go; better to keep certain thing seperate. I'd much rather see a merge of  and  into this one. PC78 17:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  HOLLYWOOD infobox 

message: Shouldn't the ! <tr ... lines in the "awards" section be changed to something like {{!}}style="text-align:left;" colspan="2"{{!}}? Isn't that a little cleaner and more consistent? (and portable to other stable MediaWikis) --TedPavlic 18:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it was a result of different people adding rows to the table over the time, some of whom were more comfortable with the wiki style syntax whereas others were more so with the HTML syntax. I agree that it would be cleaner, more consistent and portable the way you suggest it so I don't think anyone would object if you would like to make the change. ( and Go Bucks BTW :) )-- Kudret abi 19:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why the TR's? 

message: and how come it's not working anymore? Ospinad 20:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  what happened to the color? 

message: This edit introduced a formatting glitch to the infobox: the text colspan="2" style=" text-align:center; font-size:100%;" appears next to the image. Can an admin please revert or repair the edit? --Muchness 08:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A revert to the 20:12 edit on the 23 August is all that is needed. Thanks - X201 08:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've disabled the editprotected because the person who made the template breaking edit has reverted it. - X201 08:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry about that. When I added a call to  it was fine, but when documenting that template I accidentally added a newline, breaking this template. It should be fine now.--Patrick 09:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it looks fine now. Thanks for the quick fix. --Muchness 09:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Formatting glitch

message: Hi Patrick, can you explain what was the purpose of this change? It looks like something to do with placeholders, but I am not totally clear. Thanks, --Kudret abi 02:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some people may consider the placeholder images as undesired clutter (for themselves, because they know already that users can upload images). The change allows people to specify that these are not displayed to them, see Template:Image class.--Patrick 07:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see, that sounds good, thanks for the explanation :) --Kudret abi 08:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: CSS class for placeholder images

message: Will somebody please change the fistful on instances of
: width="85px"
to
: width="85"
the value of an html width-attribute is in pixels by default, unlike css where the px-suffix is correct. As it is, this is a syntax error. --Jack Merridew 13:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: --ST47Talk·Desk 15:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  width="85px" 

message: Merge Birthname with Born.
Change:--
To:-{{#if:    |width="85" Born  {{#if:{|}}}}
Please rv it to the current version if it doesn't work. Wikipedian 13:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a very visible change; has there been discussion about it somewhere? — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birthname 

message: Question: should the first occupation be capitalized? I wouldn't think so, and the documentation seems to indicate no, but not too clearly. But other users keep capitalizing it, so I'm not sure. Whatever the answer is, the documentation should probably specify. Thanks --Melty girl 18:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was the one who wrote that part of the documentation, and having never given the issue any thought I therefore never meant to imply any preference in its wording. Personally I tend to capitalize, but I honestly don't mind one way or another. PC78 22:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting! Hmm... my reasoning is that if there was no space, you wouldn't capitalize, right? "Occupation: actor, director" seems more correct to me than "Occupation: Actor, director." But am I wrong about this? Anyone have definite style rule information about this one? --Melty girl 23:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: MoS question re capitalization in infobox

message: I would be good to see how much they were earning for their most recent film and their total worth. I propose estimated earnings and estimated career earnings fields. John 15:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. I think earnings info can be worked into the narrative where relevant. Also, this kind of information is only readily available and interesting for superstars, not the average notable actor. And it's something that would need to be changed all the time, which also makes me lean away from adding it to the infobox.  --Melty girl 17:06, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No earnings fields ? 

message: Can some thought be given to adding a "nationality" parameter to this infobox, in line with other infoboxes such as  and ? Cheers, Jacklee 11:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Normally that's been dealt with in birthplace, but I take the point that people can change their nationality. Kbthompson 12:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Nationality" parameter 

message: I apologize if this has already been discussed before; I don't usually come here. I use the template quite a lot and the Gemini Awards don't show in the box like the rest of them. See for example Torri Higginson and Nicholas Campbell. Could someone kindly fix this, please ? Thank you, have a nice day. Rosenknospe 11:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello ? Is everyone out buying their Halloween costumes ? Rosenknospe 15:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem with the Gemini Awards field 

message: supports IMDb film profiles using imdb_id parameter. I'd like to see the corresponding name behavior supported here and have implemented imdb_id in  with test cases provided for review. The differences are here. – Conrad T. Pino 12:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Internet Movie Database link 

message: The documented geminiawards parameter fails with  due to spelling errors within the template, spelled as geminiaward without the ending s. – I suggest revising the template to agree with the documentation as demonstrated in  with test cases provided for review. The differences are here. – Conrad T. Pino 13:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for taking my concern into account. Have a nice day ! Rosenknospe 09:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gemini Awards bug 

message: contains conditional logic to support full copy and paste between the  and .  Selective  edits to adopt new  code are no longer required. – Conrad T. Pino 07:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template:Infobox actor/sandbox full copy &amp; paste support 

message: Please copy the entire  into  without modification.
The functional changes are:
#Problem with the Gemini Awards field and Gemini Awards bug fixed.
#Internet Movie Database link added.
#Template:Infobox actor/sandbox full copy & paste support added.
Test cases for  and  are availabe for review at .
Conrad T. Pino 07:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.--Patrick 07:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you.  disabled. – Conrad T. Pino 12:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted nr.2, see below.--Patrick (talk) 02:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit requested 7-Nov-2007 

message: Are these sections necessary to this infobox? For starters, "parents" is almost totally pointless (their names are often not even mentioned in the article itself to begin with) and only makes this infobox look more ungainly (see for example Richard Jenkins). "Children" can also stretch on for too long. Neither one of these fields has anything to do with the person's notability as an actor or even to their basic biographical stats. Anyone agree and thinks they should be removed? All Hallow's Wraith 06:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see the infobox documentation. Parents and children are only supposed to be included if they are especially notable on their own. It looks like all those fields should be emptied for Richard Jenkins. Misunderstanding this intention is a recurring problem over at Angelina Jolie, where people keep adding her children to the infobox (and often in wikilinks that merely direct back to the Angelina Jolie page). Very annoying. I can't think of anything that can be done to make the correct usage of the parents and children parameters clearer outside of the documentation, but perhaps someone else can. --Melty girl 07:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm - thanks - I'll remove any cases of non-notable children or parents listed if I see them. I guess this isn't the cases for spouses, though? All Hallow's Wraith 07:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, at this point, spouses are desired, notable or not. --Melty girl 16:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Parents/children?

message: According to that template's page, there is supposed to be a discussion here about merging it into this template.  Anybody?  —  pd_THOR | =/\= | 12:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{tl|infobox actor television}} 

message: Copy  to .
Changes:
#  restored. So you don't need the 
# NAACP image awards fixed.
Wikipedian 14:51, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Neil ☎ 10:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Kthx. Wikipedian 13:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  editprotected 

message: As the discussion and minor edit conflict at Angelina Jolie has proven, the criteria "especially notable children" for the children field has given rise to blatant violations of the WP:NPOV policy because it requires a judgement call as to what constitutes notability. (Count the hundreds of news stories involving Jolie's adopted and natural children; does that constitute notability or not?) If this same song and dance is being played out elsewhere, then this criteria needs to be removed, or a less NPOV-violating alternative chosen. Or -- and this is my suggestion for a compromise -- only children who have Wikipedia articles are eligible to be listed, since the survival of such articles indicates group consensus that notability is satisfied, thereby avoiding the NPOV issue. 23skidoo (talk) 00:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing has been "proven" at Angelina Jolie: consensus went against including her children in the infobox. Infoboxes are meant to be concise, with only the most important information included, while full detail is in the article itself. If a parent or child has done nothing notable, they should be left out of the infobox, but included in the article. Simply being in the news does not make a person notable by Wikipedia standards. Multiple editors at Angelina Jolie felt that her children have done nothing "especially notable" enough as of yet. As for the suggested "compromise"... Judging notability may be a debatable concept, but doing so does not violate WP:NPOV—if it did, we'd be unable to judge whether subjects merit Wikipedia articles. If it's too POV to say whether or not a child is notable enough for the actor infobox, why isn't it too POV to decide whether that person is notable enough to merit a Wikipedia article? This logic simply falls down. Additionally, I can foresee instances where someone has become notable, yet no one's created an article for the person yet. Using Wikipedia itself as the main measure of notability for Wikipedia seems like very weak, circular reasoning. --Melty girl (talk) 09:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Hi 23skidoo, I think you have a good point about the "especially" part. On the other hand, I agree with Melty Girl that not every notable person (yet) has a Wikipedia article. So instead of the criteria being that the child "has a Wikipedia article", it could perhaps be something like the child "is eligable for a Wikipedia article", i.e. "meets WP:BIO". --Kudret abiTalk 23:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for pointing us to WP:BIO, Kudret abi. 23skidoo, I think it's important to take notice of the wording there: "Within Wikipedia, notability is an article inclusion criterion based on encyclopedic suitability. The topic of an article should be notable, or 'worthy of notice'. This concept is distinct from 'fame', 'importance', or 'popularity'." This is why many of us felt that the answer to your question, "Count the hundreds of news stories involving Jolie's adopted and natural children; does that constitute notability or not?" is NO. The Jolie-Pitt kids do not merit mention on their own outside their parents' articles because they're not notable on their own yet; likewise, they're not notable enough for their parents' infoboxes (though they're in the bodies of the articles). I must also note that your proposal and Kudret abi's amendment to it doesn't really change anything about what's already going on here ("especially" notwithstanding); we were initially asked to consider the notability of children before placing them in the actor infobox, and with your proposal, we still would be considering their notability. I don't see a change. --Melty girl (talk) 00:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Melty Girl, you are right, there is no change, I don't think it is necessary to change the inclusion criteria for the children. My suggestion above was regarding making the wording more precise by removing "especially" and then linking to WP:BIO in the corresponding part of the documentation Template:Infobox_actor/doc. --Kudret abiTalk 00:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I get it! I think that's a great idea. --Melty girl (talk) 04:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to see the field removed but  ... how about replacing the wording with "List here any children that meet Wikipedia's notability criteria independently of their parent/s" or something similar.   I think the "independently of their parents" bit is important because the notability guideline isn't explicit on this point, and yet if someone tried to start an article on one of the Jolie/Pitt children, it would almost certainly be deleted, with the notability guideline being cited.  This way someone like Jane Fonda would be rightfully included in the infobox for Henry Fonda because she achieved notability herself, while Suri Cruise who is famous only for being the offspring of Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes would not qualify.    Rossrs (talk) 14:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perfect. I support this change wholeheartedly. Now does anyone else feel the same way about the parents parameter? As in, "List here any parents that meet Wikipedia's notability criteria independently of their children." --Melty girl (talk) 18:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I support the same criteria for parents.   The internet has many sites that specialize in geneology, but Wikipedia is not one of them.   Non notable parents, children can be mentioned in the article if appropriate, but the infobox should only focus on the key points.  Rossrs (talk) 09:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

text: The wording is good.  It makes me wonder though how it will be applied.   For example what if a person has one notable parent but the other one was not notable?  Would it be wrong to have a field that only identifies one parent and not the other.    Back to Jane Fonda - notable father, non-notable mother.  Elizabeth Montgomery - same.  Larry Hagman - notable mother, non notable father.  Actually Larry Hagman is a good example because the field is actually being used.   It says "Parents" but then has one name, Mary Martin.   It looks odd.    I don't know.   Rossrs (talk) 09:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You make a good point. I'm not sure if it's bad to list one parent or not. Actually, sometimes one parent (most often the father) never raised the child, so that's another way only one parent might be listed. And sometimes a step-parent is more like a real parent and might be notable to boot! But anyway, perhaps it's not bad if someone includes a non-notable parent along with a notable one for symmetry... but two non-notable parents are a waste of space. --Melty girl (talk) 04:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 'Especially notable children' needs to go

message: Is the "partners" section really supposed to contain every single "partner" the person has had? For example, is the way Juliette Binoche's infobox looks correct? All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 04:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoa. That example seems excessive doesn't it? The problem is how to define "partner". Seems like living with the person should be a requirement (or in lieu of that, a very long commitment) -- it should denote a extra-legal marriage kind of situation, and not be an excuse to list every single lover the subject has had. Still, in some cases, it may be hard to make the distinction. --Melty girl (talk) 04:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think it's correct. Wikipedian 04:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, did she have a serious partnership with all those men, or is that just a list of her boyfriends? If it's the latter, I think it's inappropriate and not what was intended for that parameter.--Melty girl (talk) 05:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But then comes the problem of how does one define a "serious partnership"? It is not that easy (especially since there probably isn't a bagful of information about each of those relationships), and hence what I find to be a problem with this field as a whole. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 06:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is tricky, but the solution is to err on the side of caution and verifiability. Serious, long-term relationships that aren't sanctioned by law, either because they cannot be or because the couple does not seek the authority of the state to give them permission to commit their lives to each other, should be recorded if legal marriages are recorded. Omitting them not only imposes a POV on subjects who live as family, but fails to be fully encyclopedic. I have already suggested one potential way to document the seriousness of a partnership: shacking up. It's verifiable. I would suggest a second: raising children together (includes adoption). Also verifiable. (There may be additional verifiable factors that others could add to my two.) Therefore, if Binoche and Day-Lewis lived together, even if only for that one year, I'd keep him in the infobox; if not, I'd take him out. Marriages are often short, so why can't partnerships be? --Melty girl (talk) 07:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But did Binoche live with all of the people listed in that field? Maybe the answer is available out there somewhere, but the "Personal life" section doesn't give too many clues. What you're suggesting may be a good idea, but it sometimes may take a lot of extraneous research. Another idea that I had is to list the current partner only. That would at least make editing an infobox like Binoche's easier to figure out. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 10:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's no more extraneous to research than anything else, since everything must be verifiable, not just this. If a partner can't be verified, then it should go -- just like anything else. Articles about actors often mention if they're living with someone or raising a child with someone, just like they often mention legal marriages. There's no need to limit partners to current only. Anything unsourced can be removed, so if the sources in the Binoche article do not reveal a partnership nature of those relationships, they should be removed from the infobox. --Melty girl (talk) 21:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

text: That's a good idea, especially since "Partner" can mean many things (I'm reminded of that scene in American Beauty where Chris Cooper misinterprets "partners" as business partners). All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 23:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, let's see what other people think about it. I don't think it's something that will be contentious, though the length of the parameter will increase. BTW, I must admit, I've never tried to change a template before, but I bet I could figure it out or get assistance. --Melty girl (talk) 00:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you have to be an administrator to change this particular template, although anyone can edit the description form below it. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 01:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think y'all have hit the nail on the head.  The "partner" parameter was added specifically for domestic partners, and it makes sense to say that rather than something that could be interpreted in a variety of ways. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 06:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Exactly.  SatyrTN is right.   I predict that somebody will end up "partnering" Bud Abbott and Lou Costello or Bob Hope and Bing Crosby.  ;-) "Domestic partner" sounds good.   Very specific and it should eliminate a lot of the "just dating" or "slept together once" possibilities.  Plus the addition of a reliable source - and I think we're on the right track. Rossrs (talk) 09:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The changes have been made. --Melty girl (talk) 03:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Partners

message: I've noticed that this has been added into several articles, just when I thought there wasn't another thing that could possibly be added.   I must have missed the discussion about it before it was added ;-) Does anyone else feel that this is superfluous to the infobox?   Is it likely than many people would consider this one of the most important summarizing points about a person?   Also,  I've noticed that Bea Benaderet has not only a resting place, but a link to map co-ordinates.  I can see that map coordinates might be helpful in the article about the cemetery itself, but unless it links to an aerial photo of Bea's grave, I think it's just one more line of clutter in her infobox and doesn't serve any useful purpose.   Rossrs (talk) 16:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. This is a detail for the body of the article. --Melty girl (talk) 22:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, definitely extraneous and needs to go. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 22:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

text: It may have come in from template:Infobox Person which included these fields as well.  —  pd_THOR | =/\= | 22:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Resting place

message: Please fix this :- 220px. This is been showing articles which has no images. Thank You.--SkyWalker (talk) 08:04, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Admins fix this

message: 
Please replace the link to AFI Awards with Australian Film Institute Awards. --Kusunose (talk) 02:32, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done - Nihiltres{t.l} 03:40, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for disambiguation