Template talk:Infobox scientist/Archive 1

message: LOL. I hope we can now settle about where to put the TfD notice. I assume Mackensen intentionally did put the notice inside the noinclude so that the notice doesn't show up in articles. I just hope the fans of that box are not surprised if it is deleted (if that should be the outcome of the TfD debate). --Ligulem 23:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Visibility of TfD Notice

message: Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion says "use     or  ". I.e. use that which is best suitable.
It should be made clear that a template is nominated for deletion. If the notice is put at the top of the page, how can we understand that it is the infobox that is up for deletion? 
Fred-Chess 12:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I'll keep it as it is then. I still prefer the same version as Bunzil, but at least consensus finds this version acceptable, so am sticking with it for now. If you prefer the other version too, say so. / Fred-Chess 14:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Hi Fred, time is ticking away and you haven't done the update as per your suggestion. Thus I have done it for you. Best regards, bunix 11:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ok, good. / Fred-Chess 15:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Your welcome. Best regards, bunix 22:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stupid revert war 

message: Here is a list of all fields with a reminder of their use and why they were put there. If you vote here, you are essentially voting to keep the whole template in abridged form. (If you are someone who doesn't want the template at all, then you should vote on the TfD page, not here). Please vote keep or delete underneath each heading. Hopefully we can then reach a consensus on how to best trim down the box.
===Field#1: Birth Date === 
Result is Keep.
*Mode: Insert date of birth: month, day, year
*Reason: It's here because this is standard to all people infoboxes.
*Keep. It's standard. Sets period context. bunix 23:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Comment. Peta, it's not so obvious where the main domicile is when there's more than one insitution across counties. bunix 00:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Response. Then the person probably has had multiple residences (across space and time) and this will become another bloated field.--Peta 00:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Response. Not usually that many. The are over 100 articles out there with the template...if you browse through a few by clicking on "links" on the TfD page you'll see that they are not bloated at all! (Some are temporarily bloated, awaiting trimming from local editors...but don't let that affect your opinion of the template in general).  Remember the "Politician Infobox" has 34 fields!! We are doing really well compared to that box and I notice you haven't put out a TfD on the politicians :-)bunix 09:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Response. While there may be a category, those are at the bottom of the page. The idea of the infobox is it is at the top of the page and provides a consistent structured checklist for people who need to scan down it quickly. Some redundancy is a good thing. bunix 09:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Comment. There is something seriously wrong if the first sentence of an article doesn't state what the person did.--Peta 00:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Response. People often scan the infobox only for making quick comparisons between articles and also as an entré before they decide to invest time in reading the whole article. Editors often make the mistake of assuming the average reader is at the same level of education and has the same reading behaviours as them :-) Try to see things more broadly guys! bunix 00:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Response.It is also covered by categories.--Peta 00:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Response.Disagree. (i) They are too limiting when a scientist crosses more than one field, and (ii) they are way down the bottom of the page anyway.bunix 00:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Response. First sentence and bottom of the page, pretty hard to miss in either case.--Peta 00:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Response. In reply to both Samsara and Peta, the idea is that there are a large group of people who scan the infobox only. The idea is the infobox is a consistent checklist. Having the field in there is very useful for a fast snapshot. bunix 09:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Response. Case for bloat still stands. - Samsara (talk• contribs) 22:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Response. Everything is a case for a bloat. We are trying to prioritise here. Other fields will get the chop by consensus and thus cure any bloat...I doubt this one will get chopped because it is fundamental to scientific biography.bunix 23:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Response. Take your point, but there usually is a compact term to get you out of trouble such as "natural philosophy" and the like. The infobox only contains highlights, and the reader then refers to the main article for expanded discussion.bunix 00:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Response. Good idea.  I concur.--ragesoss 00:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Response. I like the way you think, but it doesn't work as a person's undergrad Alma Mater may be different to their Postgrad Alma Mater. Thus I vote to keep.bunix 09:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Comment.I should also add in connection with this, that while PhDs are issued by universities, there are cases where the recipient technically does their thesis work outside the university - and in connection with somebody who also isn't from the university (this set up is pretty common in Australia - and I'm assuming occurs elsewhere). How would the box reflect such a situation? Alma mater implies attendance, which may not be the case.--Peta 02:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Response.  It's not a problem really. For example, Einstein's Alma Mater was ETH, but his doctoral advisor was at Univ. Zurich. So "ETH" goes in the Alma Mater field and "Alfred Kleiner" goes in the Advisor field. No problemo. This is another good reason to separate those two fields and not merge them. The Alma Mater is always the issuing university...if the person did not actually attend and did the work externally then this will be explained in the full article. bunix 09:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Comment.It is also a problem of terminology, most cultures don't use the term.--Peta 11:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Response. Cultures?  This is the English language wiki site! "Alma mater" is well understood by ozzies, yanks, and pommies....there is no other equivalent term as far as I know. So I'm afraid we are stuck with "Alma Mater."bunix 14:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Response. Not really. Alma Mater is very specific. Research group is too fine-grained and won't have a wiki link. bunix 09:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Response.Give me an example where there is a direct causal link between alma mater and scientific contribution, and where there is no other institution where the scientist could have made the same contribution. It seems that the immediate environment (i.e. research group, institution, circle) is much more influential. Note that I don't consider "because X was also there" a good counterproof to my argument. It would have to be something that is described in further detail in the article about the institution to merit a link. Specialised equipment is the only case I can think of, and this usually has its own articles, e.g. Large Hadron Collider. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Response.The "Alma Mater" is like the badge that represents the groups within it. Individual groups are way too fine-grained for the infobox. So to use an analogy its like saying the guy drove a Ford rather than going into the exact model number, engine capacity, and whether it had leather seats or not. bunix 23:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Response. (i) You can't get more international than using Latin :-), and (ii) Alma Mater means any university you graduated from....so it applies to any degree, not just PhD. I think it is very important to keep in the infobox. The public are greatly interested in quickly looking up who went where...especially if they have kids they are thinking of sending to university :-) bunix 14:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Response. Yeah, like one or two at most. No big problem.bunix 23:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment. Disagree. If you look up a footballer, the first thing you want to know is what teams he played with. Same with a scientist. The Alma Mater is an important part of the scientist's "team badge" so to speak. The public want to be able to easily find this stuff without trawling. As per Bender's comment about "usually more than one", just browse through the existing boxes in articles and you'll see the Alma Mater field is not all bloated. There's usually one or two universities in there and that's it.bunix 21:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment. You're comparing science to a sport.  — Laura Scudder ☎ 16:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Response. Sure. I see scientists as 'heroes' as in any field of endeavour...let's not get too precious and fall into the trap of misplaced exhaltation.bunix 18:30, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Response. Indeed it is useful and it should be in the full text too (as for all other infobox fields). However, an entry in the infobox is extremely handy for (a) picking out the Alma Mater fast, and (b) easily comparing different biographies. The public love to be able to quickly find Alma Mater to verify if the famous scientist went to the university that they are sending their kids to. We cannot misunderestimate this popular demand. bunix 02:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Comment implies a very dull scientific genealogy, scientists have a variety of influenes during their careers, the extent of any influence should be described in the text - in the context of the persons career.--Peta 02:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Response. All stuff in the infobox demands expansion in the main article. So there is no problem. There is a sense in which the infobox gives editors a checklist to remind them if the article is lacking in key areas. The infobox is an executive summary. The significance of the doctoral advisor is that it is usually the first major influence. So it is "anchor information." Also there is great interest in scientific genealogy via the supervisor.bunix 23:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Response. See notes above under Mode. Only notable ones are included....cases of more than two notables are very rare. At present, some boxes have erred on the side of temporarily bloating this as a "place holder" to give editors a fair chance to reach consensus on which are notable. But its only temporary. bunix 09:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment. Difficult to maintain as bar for notability is lowered/notability of individuals is increased by subsequent event (e.g. rediscovery of importance of their work). - Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Response. Should be no problem. Wikipedia is organic. Future editors will always add and delete stuff to reflect new information. That's the power of wiki.bunix 18:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Comment. No diligence needed. Any that do not have their own wiki article can be commented out. If they are notable, then they probably have their own article. Your problem is nice because it is a self-correcting one. Once a wiki article appears, that student can be commented back in. bunix 23:30, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Response. I'd encourage you to browse through the 100 biographies that contain this template. You'll see in 95% of cases there is a nice neat descriptor, eg. "Radioactivity" for Marie Curie. I don't see  how that is POV. In some cases there are a few extra descriptors when the person has been prolific. But it is upto local editors to trim those down to the highlights. The infobox is not meant to be exhaustive...it is a summary of highlights as an entré to taste before reading the main article.bunix 00:17, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Reply. It's a nice idea, but I still prefer "Known for."  For example several scientists are known for their work in Quantum Mechanics, but it would be incorrect to label them as "acheiving" quantum mechanics.  I think "known for" says what we really mean. It's less confusing. bunix 22:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Response. I respectfully disagree. "Extending quantum mechanics" is very helpful. If I had not heard of that scientist in the first place, it immediately places the area of expertise in the QM area, as opposed to a 1001 other possibilities. The usefulness is clear. bunix 22:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Response. The public wants to see the human side in any biography. This is significant. Zsa Zsa Gabor was not a scientist, and so far in 100 articles we have never encountered more than 3 spouses (and even that was rare). There is no significant bloat here.bunix 09:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Response. Do not underestimate the public's passion for the human story in every biography. Finding spousal details is something the public wants to find out. From the viewpoint of the infobox being a summary and a navigational aid to the reader, it is important to put the spouse name in there. It helps the reader know the name they are looking for when they go onto reading the article.bunix 21:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Comment. The scientist is a human. For example, the public are intensely interested in finding out about Einstein's wives and love letters. The person's humanity is equally part of the biography as the person's science career.bunix 17:24, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Response. Strong disagree. Public passion is what wiki is all about. Wikipedia is written by the proletariat, for the proletariat. Power to the people. Highly educated editors have to be careful of not being too elitist. bunix 21:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Response. Disagree. People are every bit as interested in all aspects of a Scientist's biography as that of a Monarch's biography. One could also argue that scientists are the Monarch's of this technological age. bunix 09:30, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Response. As with all infobox entries they act as an entré to entice the reader to read the artcle. Seeing the names of the children act as mental "place holders" for when reading the article. bunix 10:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Response: Again the intention is more navigational for the article rather than providing stand-alone information. Some information is conveyed when the reader sees at a quick glance the number of children.bunix 21:31, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Response: True. But this is a biography. The scientist is a human, not just a scientist. The public want well-rounded biographical profiles that show famous people in the context of their humanity as well as their career. For example, if you look up a book such as Who's Who spouse and offspring data are always included. That's because it is standard for bios and people want that stuff. Who's Who has been running for years. bunix 10:55, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Response. Don't forget this is a biography. This means looking at the person as a human as well as a scientist. The public are intensely interested in (say) Einstein's lovers, wives, children and religious position. This is all good stuff for a good human story. The science is only part of the story. bunix 14:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

text:  Comment. We are not forcing a label. Only merely stating what is known. It then acts as navigational aid when the reader goes to the main article. In some rare cases if the religion is "unknown" or "debated", simply stating that in the infobox helps the reader from wasting trawling time. The public love finding out if a scientist was a hard core atheist or was a practising Catholic (for example). Popular demand urges us to take this seriously.bunix 21:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Response. I disagree with the focus on a 'scientist as a scientist.'  The scientist is a human, and a good biography integrates the whole person. The public do no want biographies of cardboard figures ...they want to see biographies of real people in their humanity along with their idiosyncrasies, flaws and foibles.  bunix 17:07, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment. Which entirely misses the point. The infobox should focus on the scientist as scientist. A good biography infobox, whether for scientists  or for people who purposely wear mismatched socks, is not where one reads the "warts and all" description of a person. That is the purpose of the article. Michael Kinyon 23:38, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Response. I agree that "warts" can go to the main article. However, I respectfully disagree that "religion" is a wart or that the infobox is only for scientific aspects. For example, the person's place of death is there and has nothing to do with their science. However, it has everything to do with good biographical data. Likewise, religion is an important piece of biographical data. There is intense public interest in the  belief systems of scientists and their influence on them. Also it would be incorrect to say that (say) Newton's religious beliefs had zero influence on his science. They in fact did! It is all part of the fascinating web of intrigue when unravelling a scientific biography.bunix 02:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Response. It's useful in the infobox because it provides a quick snapshot of the person. This info is normally hard to find in the article. People are intensely interested in the religion (or lack thereof) of scientists...an infobox entry enables quick comparison with other scientists.bunix 10:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Response. I disagree that difficulty of categorisation is a reason to delete. Rather, it is a reason to become creative! It is clear that in the Weinberg case that the solution would be to simply put "atheist" in the infobox, as that is his position. Then expansion on his Jewish upbringing would be something the main article would be responsible for. IMHO, I see no big problem. As for the point about it being not being related his science...remember a biography is not just about a person's career, it's about their life! Ignoring human interest is not what the average reader wants. A biographical article is a snapshot of the whole person...the career being a major but not exclusive aspect. bunix 00:12, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Response. Surely this could be handled via categories or some other scheme. For most scientists, it's completely trivial. --Starwiz 04:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Response. Many other "people infoboxes" appear to have this field. It keeps the box self-contained and provides a quick link to the reader. It's worth keeping. People don't always want to look at the article....they want to go straight to the infobox and click on links there.
*Delete I went through the templates at Infobox templates, People and found only two had a website field.  Since there is a place to put this in external links that is standard on every page and it's not standard in bio infoboxes, I'm not in favor on keeping. --SiobhanHansa 12:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Comment. An infobox is like a kitchen pantry of goodies. There's no point having some goodies in the garage. They need to be centralised in the pantry, otherwise it slows you down when you are cooking dinner.bunix 14:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Response. Ah, but that is "you." When designing infoboxes you have to think like the average newbie. The infobox helps newbies navigate quickly. It is very useful to have a quick link to the main website in the infobox. Many other infoboxes in other projects do this...why are we different?bunix 21:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Response. Because we are not lemmings. Indeed, we should set a good example for other infobox writers. Michael Kinyon 23:44, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Response. Giggle. I guess you haven't explained why it is 'good'.bunix 21:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Let's move on and reach consensus on the individual fields so we can trim the box

message: Result is Keep.
*Mode: Insert date of birth: month, day, year
*Reason: It's here because this is standard to all people infoboxes.
*Keep. It's standard. Sets period context. bunix 23:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Field#1: Birth Date 

message: Result is Keep.
*Mode: Insert place of birth: town, city, country
*Reason: It's here because this is standard to all people infoboxes.
*Keep. It's standard. bunix 23:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Field#2: Birth Place

message: Result is Keep.
*Mode:Insert date of death: month, day, year
*Reason: It's here because this is standard to all people infoboxes.
*Keep. It's standard. bunix 23:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Field#3: Death Date

message: Result is Keep.
*Mode:Insert place of death: town, city, country
*Reason: It's here because this is standard to all people infoboxes.
*Keep. It's standard. bunix 23:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Field#4: Death Place

message: Result is Keep.
*Mode: Insert countries where scientist has lived. If some are minor, select key countries only
*Reason: Main country of domicile can often be different from nationality. This quickly unwraps the potential confusion for a lot of readers.
*Keep. It navigates readers for distinguishing domicile and nationality.bunix 23:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Comment. Peta, it's not so obvious where the main domicile is when there's more than one insitution across counties. bunix 00:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Response. Then the person probably has had multiple residences (across space and time) and this will become another bloated field.--Peta 00:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Response. Not usually that many. The are over 100 articles out there with the template...if you browse through a few by clicking on "links" on the TfD page you'll see that they are not bloated at all! (Some are temporarily bloated, awaiting trimming from local editors...but don't let that affect your opinion of the template in general).  Remember the "Politician Infobox" has 34 fields!! We are doing really well compared to that box and I notice you haven't put out a TfD on the politicians :-)bunix 09:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Field#5: Residence

message: Result is Keep.
*Mode: Insert nationality of scientist
*Reason: It's here because this is a standard piece of bibliographic data.
*Keep. It's standard. And people like to know where science 'stars' are originally from.bunix 23:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Response. While there may be a category, those are at the bottom of the page. The idea of the infobox is it is at the top of the page and provides a consistent structured checklist for people who need to scan down it quickly. Some redundancy is a good thing. bunix 09:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Field#6: Nationality

message: Result is Keep.
*Mode: State if they are a physicist, chemist, biologist, mathematician, engineer....
*Reason: If a reader is unfamiliar with that scientist this gives a fast snapshot of what broad field the scientist is working in.
*Keep. Important for reader 'navigation'. Remember, not all readers are at the education level of the editors who wrote the article! bunix 23:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment. There is something seriously wrong if the first sentence of an article doesn't state what the person did.--Peta 00:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Response. People often scan the infobox only for making quick comparisons between articles and also as an entré before they decide to invest time in reading the whole article. Editors often make the mistake of assuming the average reader is at the same level of education and has the same reading behaviours as them :-) Try to see things more broadly guys! bunix 00:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Response.It is also covered by categories.--Peta 00:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Response.Disagree. (i) They are too limiting when a scientist crosses more than one field, and (ii) they are way down the bottom of the page anyway.bunix 00:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Response. First sentence and bottom of the page, pretty hard to miss in either case.--Peta 00:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Response. In reply to both Samsara and Peta, the idea is that there are a large group of people who scan the infobox only. The idea is the infobox is a consistent checklist. Having the field in there is very useful for a fast snapshot. bunix 09:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Response. Case for bloat still stands. - Samsara (talk• contribs) 22:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Response. Everything is a case for a bloat. We are trying to prioritise here. Other fields will get the chop by consensus and thus cure any bloat...I doubt this one will get chopped because it is fundamental to scientific biography.bunix 23:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Response. Take your point, but there usually is a compact term to get you out of trouble such as "natural philosophy" and the like. The infobox only contains highlights, and the reader then refers to the main article for expanded discussion.bunix 00:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Field#7: Field

message: Result is Keep.
*Mode: Insert key companies and/or universities where they are/were employed. Leave out minor ones.
*Reason: A reader usually wants to know where this scientist did his/her stuff.
*Keep. Important for reader 'navigation'.bunix 23:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Field#8: Work Institution

message: Result is No Consensus, therefore Keep. (3 for, 5 against)
*Mode: Insert universities where scientist obtained degrees
*Reason: Key biographical fact to assist understanding early influences
*Keep. Important for reader 'navigation' and readers usually want to find this quickly. bunix 23:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Response. Good idea.  I concur.--ragesoss 00:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Response. I like the way you think, but it doesn't work as a person's undergrad Alma Mater may be different to their Postgrad Alma Mater. Thus I vote to keep.bunix 09:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Comment.I should also add in connection with this, that while PhDs are issued by universities, there are cases where the recipient technically does their thesis work outside the university - and in connection with somebody who also isn't from the university (this set up is pretty common in Australia - and I'm assuming occurs elsewhere). How would the box reflect such a situation? Alma mater implies attendance, which may not be the case.--Peta 02:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Response.  It's not a problem really. For example, Einstein's Alma Mater was ETH, but his doctoral advisor was at Univ. Zurich. So "ETH" goes in the Alma Mater field and "Alfred Kleiner" goes in the Advisor field. No problemo. This is another good reason to separate those two fields and not merge them. The Alma Mater is always the issuing university...if the person did not actually attend and did the work externally then this will be explained in the full article. bunix 09:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Comment.It is also a problem of terminology, most cultures don't use the term.--Peta 11:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Response. Cultures?  This is the English language wiki site! "Alma mater" is well understood by ozzies, yanks, and pommies....there is no other equivalent term as far as I know. So I'm afraid we are stuck with "Alma Mater."bunix 14:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Response. Not really. Alma Mater is very specific. Research group is too fine-grained and won't have a wiki link. bunix 09:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Response.Give me an example where there is a direct causal link between alma mater and scientific contribution, and where there is no other institution where the scientist could have made the same contribution. It seems that the immediate environment (i.e. research group, institution, circle) is much more influential. Note that I don't consider "because X was also there" a good counterproof to my argument. It would have to be something that is described in further detail in the article about the institution to merit a link. Specialised equipment is the only case I can think of, and this usually has its own articles, e.g. Large Hadron Collider. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Response.The "Alma Mater" is like the badge that represents the groups within it. Individual groups are way too fine-grained for the infobox. So to use an analogy its like saying the guy drove a Ford rather than going into the exact model number, engine capacity, and whether it had leather seats or not. bunix 23:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Response. (i) You can't get more international than using Latin :-), and (ii) Alma Mater means any university you graduated from....so it applies to any degree, not just PhD. I think it is very important to keep in the infobox. The public are greatly interested in quickly looking up who went where...especially if they have kids they are thinking of sending to university :-) bunix 14:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Response. Yeah, like one or two at most. No big problem.bunix 23:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment. Disagree. If you look up a footballer, the first thing you want to know is what teams he played with. Same with a scientist. The Alma Mater is an important part of the scientist's "team badge" so to speak. The public want to be able to easily find this stuff without trawling. As per Bender's comment about "usually more than one", just browse through the existing boxes in articles and you'll see the Alma Mater field is not all bloated. There's usually one or two universities in there and that's it.bunix 21:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment. You're comparing science to a sport.  — Laura Scudder ☎ 16:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Response. Sure. I see scientists as 'heroes' as in any field of endeavour...let's not get too precious and fall into the trap of misplaced exhaltation.bunix 18:30, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Response. Indeed it is useful and it should be in the full text too (as for all other infobox fields). However, an entry in the infobox is extremely handy for (a) picking out the Alma Mater fast, and (b) easily comparing different biographies. The public love to be able to quickly find Alma Mater to verify if the famous scientist went to the university that they are sending their kids to. We cannot misunderestimate this popular demand. bunix 02:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Field#9: Alma Mater

message: Result is Keep.
*Mode: Insert doctoral advisor. If only to masters level, then use masters advisor. In special cases can insert other major influence. 
*Reason: Scientific 'ancestry' is part of understanding  biographical influences as well as being of popular interest.
*Keep. Important for reader 'navigation' and provides a quick link to a related biography.bunix 23:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment implies a very dull scientific genealogy, scientists have a variety of influenes during their careers, the extent of any influence should be described in the text - in the context of the persons career.--Peta 02:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Response. All stuff in the infobox demands expansion in the main article. So there is no problem. There is a sense in which the infobox gives editors a checklist to remind them if the article is lacking in key areas. The infobox is an executive summary. The significance of the doctoral advisor is that it is usually the first major influence. So it is "anchor information." Also there is great interest in scientific genealogy via the supervisor.bunix 23:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Field#10: Doctoral Advisor

message: Result is Keep.
*Mode: If any, insert their key doctoral students. Does not have to be exhaustive. The intention is any students that aren't notable enough to have their own wikipage should be deleted. 
*Reason: Scientific 'ancestry' is part of understanding  biographical influences as well as being of popular interest.
*Keep. Important for reader 'navigation' and provides a quick link to a related biography.bunix 23:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Response. See notes above under Mode. Only notable ones are included....cases of more than two notables are very rare. At present, some boxes have erred on the side of temporarily bloating this as a "place holder" to give editors a fair chance to reach consensus on which are notable. But its only temporary. bunix 09:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment. Difficult to maintain as bar for notability is lowered/notability of individuals is increased by subsequent event (e.g. rediscovery of importance of their work). - Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Response. Should be no problem. Wikipedia is organic. Future editors will always add and delete stuff to reflect new information. That's the power of wiki.bunix 18:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Comment. No diligence needed. Any that do not have their own wiki article can be commented out. If they are notable, then they probably have their own article. Your problem is nice because it is a self-correcting one. Once a wiki article appears, that student can be commented back in. bunix 23:30, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Field#11: Doctoral Students

message: Result is Keep.
*Mode: Insert key topics/areas of science that made them famous.
*Reason: Very useful for readers who are unfamiliar with the scientist to quickly find keywords relating to the scientist's area of acheivement.
*Keep. Important for reader 'navigation'.bunix 23:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Response. I'd encourage you to browse through the 100 biographies that contain this template. You'll see in 95% of cases there is a nice neat descriptor, eg. "Radioactivity" for Marie Curie. I don't see  how that is POV. In some cases there are a few extra descriptors when the person has been prolific. But it is upto local editors to trim those down to the highlights. The infobox is not meant to be exhaustive...it is a summary of highlights as an entré to taste before reading the main article.bunix 00:17, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Reply. It's a nice idea, but I still prefer "Known for."  For example several scientists are known for their work in Quantum Mechanics, but it would be incorrect to label them as "acheiving" quantum mechanics.  I think "known for" says what we really mean. It's less confusing. bunix 22:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Response. I respectfully disagree. "Extending quantum mechanics" is very helpful. If I had not heard of that scientist in the first place, it immediately places the area of expertise in the QM area, as opposed to a 1001 other possibilities. The usefulness is clear. bunix 22:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Field #12: Known for

message: Result is Delete.
*Mode: Insert scientific societies where they have risen to level of Fellow.
*Reason: Provides a quick lookup for a item scientific biographical interest.
*Delete. Possibly not of great value/interest to the average reader. This is better off in the main article.bunix 23:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Field #13: Societies

message: Result is No Consensus, therefore Keep. (5 for, 5 against)
*Mode: Insert notable prizes and medals
*Reason: Provides a quick lookup for a item scientific biographical interest.
*Delete. Possibly not of great value/interest to the average reader. This is better off in the main article. The average reader probably is only aware of the 'Nobel prize' and something of this magnitude can be indicated in the Footnote field, perhaps. bunix 23:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Field #14: Prizes

message: Result is Delete (2 for, 10 against)
*Mode: Insert spouse(s) and year(s) of marriage
*Reason: There is an intense public demand to see the human side of the scientist, which is part of the human story of necessity in any biography. This field provides a quick lookup of information normally hard to find.
*Keep. Important for reader article 'navigation' and demanded by public.bunix 23:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Response. The public wants to see the human side in any biography. This is significant. Zsa Zsa Gabor was not a scientist, and so far in 100 articles we have never encountered more than 3 spouses (and even that was rare). There is no significant bloat here.bunix 09:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Response. Do not underestimate the public's passion for the human story in every biography. Finding spousal details is something the public wants to find out. From the viewpoint of the infobox being a summary and a navigational aid to the reader, it is important to put the spouse name in there. It helps the reader know the name they are looking for when they go onto reading the article.bunix 21:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Comment. The scientist is a human. For example, the public are intensely interested in finding out about Einstein's wives and love letters. The person's humanity is equally part of the biography as the person's science career.bunix 17:24, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Response. Strong disagree. Public passion is what wiki is all about. Wikipedia is written by the proletariat, for the proletariat. Power to the people. Highly educated editors have to be careful of not being too elitist. bunix 21:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Response. Disagree. People are every bit as interested in all aspects of a Scientist's biography as that of a Monarch's biography. One could also argue that scientists are the Monarch's of this technological age. bunix 09:30, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Field #15: Spouse

message: Result is Delete (2 for, 9 against)
*Mode: Insert names of children
*Reason: There is an intense public demand to see the human side of the scientist, which is part of the human story of necessity in any biography. This field provides a quick lookup of information normally hard to find.
*Keep. Important for reader article 'navigation' and demanded by public.bunix 23:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Response. As with all infobox entries they act as an entré to entice the reader to read the artcle. Seeing the names of the children act as mental "place holders" for when reading the article. bunix 10:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Response: Again the intention is more navigational for the article rather than providing stand-alone information. Some information is conveyed when the reader sees at a quick glance the number of children.bunix 21:31, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Response: True. But this is a biography. The scientist is a human, not just a scientist. The public want well-rounded biographical profiles that show famous people in the context of their humanity as well as their career. For example, if you look up a book such as Who's Who spouse and offspring data are always included. That's because it is standard for bios and people want that stuff. Who's Who has been running for years. bunix 10:55, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Field #16: Children

message: Result is No Consensus so Keep. (3 for, 10 against).  I'm going to stick my neck out for Keep on this, but recommend that 99% of the time this field be left blank.  Only use it where they have strong religious views which related to their scientific achievement. Bluap 17:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Response. Don't forget this is a biography. This means looking at the person as a human as well as a scientist. The public are intensely interested in (say) Einstein's lovers, wives, children and religious position. This is all good stuff for a good human story. The science is only part of the story. bunix 14:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Comment. We are not forcing a label. Only merely stating what is known. It then acts as navigational aid when the reader goes to the main article. In some rare cases if the religion is "unknown" or "debated", simply stating that in the infobox helps the reader from wasting trawling time. The public love finding out if a scientist was a hard core atheist or was a practising Catholic (for example). Popular demand urges us to take this seriously.bunix 21:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Response. I disagree with the focus on a 'scientist as a scientist.'  The scientist is a human, and a good biography integrates the whole person. The public do no want biographies of cardboard figures ...they want to see biographies of real people in their humanity along with their idiosyncrasies, flaws and foibles.  bunix 17:07, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment. Which entirely misses the point. The infobox should focus on the scientist as scientist. A good biography infobox, whether for scientists  or for people who purposely wear mismatched socks, is not where one reads the "warts and all" description of a person. That is the purpose of the article. Michael Kinyon 23:38, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Response. I agree that "warts" can go to the main article. However, I respectfully disagree that "religion" is a wart or that the infobox is only for scientific aspects. For example, the person's place of death is there and has nothing to do with their science. However, it has everything to do with good biographical data. Likewise, religion is an important piece of biographical data. There is intense public interest in the  belief systems of scientists and their influence on them. Also it would be incorrect to say that (say) Newton's religious beliefs had zero influence on his science. They in fact did! It is all part of the fascinating web of intrigue when unravelling a scientific biography.bunix 02:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Response. It's useful in the infobox because it provides a quick snapshot of the person. This info is normally hard to find in the article. People are intensely interested in the religion (or lack thereof) of scientists...an infobox entry enables quick comparison with other scientists.bunix 10:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Response. I disagree that difficulty of categorisation is a reason to delete. Rather, it is a reason to become creative! It is clear that in the Weinberg case that the solution would be to simply put "atheist" in the infobox, as that is his position. Then expansion on his Jewish upbringing would be something the main article would be responsible for. IMHO, I see no big problem. As for the point about it being not being related his science...remember a biography is not just about a person's career, it's about their life! Ignoring human interest is not what the average reader wants. A biographical article is a snapshot of the whole person...the career being a major but not exclusive aspect. bunix 00:12, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Field #17: Religion

message: Result is Delete.
*Mode: Insert Erdos number
*Reason: Provides one measure of 20th century influence. Influential 20th century scientists usually have a low Erdos number. Probably will get more and more popular, so better to include now to predict future public demand.
*Delete. Possibily too esoteric. bunix 23:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Response. Surely this could be handled via categories or some other scheme. For most scientists, it's completely trivial. --Starwiz 04:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Field #18: Erdos Number

message: Result is Delete.
*Mode: Insert whether left or right handed or ambidextrous
*Reason: There is public interest in the relationship between left-handedness and mathematical ability. Provides quick visible lookup of information that is normally hard to find.
*Keep. This is fascinating to do something a little different sometimes and not be too conservative. Wikipedia is more sexy than Britannica :-) bunix 23:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Field #19: Handidness

message: Result is Delete.
*Mode: Insert a homepage (if alive) or a key informative website (if now dead)
*Reason: Useful quick link.
*Keep. This is pretty standard across all people infoboxes.bunix 23:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Response. Many other "people infoboxes" appear to have this field. It keeps the box self-contained and provides a quick link to the reader. It's worth keeping. People don't always want to look at the article....they want to go straight to the infobox and click on links there.
*Delete I went through the templates at Infobox templates, People and found only two had a website field.  Since there is a place to put this in external links that is standard on every page and it's not standard in bio infoboxes, I'm not in favor on keeping. --SiobhanHansa 12:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment. An infobox is like a kitchen pantry of goodies. There's no point having some goodies in the garage. They need to be centralised in the pantry, otherwise it slows you down when you are cooking dinner.bunix 14:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Response. Ah, but that is "you." When designing infoboxes you have to think like the average newbie. The infobox helps newbies navigate quickly. It is very useful to have a quick link to the main website in the infobox. Many other infoboxes in other projects do this...why are we different?bunix 21:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Response. Because we are not lemmings. Indeed, we should set a good example for other infobox writers. Michael Kinyon 23:44, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Response. Giggle. I guess you haven't explained why it is 'good'.bunix 21:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Field #20: Webpage

message: Result is Keep.
*Mode: Insert any extra details here. Idea is not to populate this field very often. Only use in special cases where some special thing merits addition.
*Reason: Useful for a quick explanation if there is something out of the ordinary.
*Keep. This is pretty standard across all people infoboxes.bunix 23:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Field #21: Footnotes

message: I would like to suggest that instead of using the full date of birth, we simply use the birth year.  This should allow us to have the birth date and place on a single line, reducing the total length of the template while still presenting the same information.  (The full date of birth can still be mentioned in the opening paragraph of the article.)  The template is designed to give a brief summary and, as such, I feel that a simple birth year is best.  The same logic can be applied to the date of death. Bluap 17:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birth / Death Information 

message: Guided by the (above) discussion, I have trimmed down the template. Where there was a clear consensus for "delete" or "keep" this has been done. Where a clear consensus has not emerged,
I erred on the side of "keep" so we can at least see how it scrubs up (below). Please note that
15 optional fields are now a considerable improvement (over 22 before) and also considerably better than the "Politician Template" (34 fields). So we are doing well here, in terms of trim-factor.
Please note that Marie Curie is chosen as a totally random example just to see how the thing looks for your comments. Because the fields are usually optional, Curie has been chosen as a random example of a template that needs the footnote field.bunix 06:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New Template Draft for Discussion

message: I failed to read the discussion about this template, so I happily repopulated Children and Spouse arguments on Marie Curie infobox. Shouldn't the Usage text itself indicate that there are changes going on and which arguments are being phased out? Svemir 03:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. Sorry about that, I've been away on a wiki break. OK, I've now updated the instructions that can be seen at . bunix 22:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updating Usage Instructions 

message: ...is predominantly an American term, and this is an international enyclopedia. In British English we use the phrase extremely rarely, if at all. Could it perhaps be reworded? --kingboyk 14:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  How about changing the text to "Studied At"?  I suggest that we keep the data-field the same, to avoid altering all the existing usages of the infobox. Bluap 21:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alma mater 

message: Would it be useful for this template to include the Template:Persondata metadata template also?  Much of the data required by Wikipedia:Persondata can be taken directly from arguments to this template, and would thus remove the tedious and repitive task of adding persondata manually.  Thoughts? --SilverStar 07:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Off-hand, it should be possible to populate the non-visible Template:Persondata directly from this infobox.  However, one problem is that Template:Persondata should be placed at the end of the article, while Template:Infobox_Scientist is typically placed at the top of the article. Bluap 20:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inclusion of persondata 

message: Dear Geogre. I really loved your beautiful and passionate use of the English language. Your speech was very moving, but I must respectfully disagree. Here are my responses:
# False. Examine the >300 scientists for which this template has been used. There is no doubt in each case that they are foremost scientists. There are many bio infoboxes: celebrities, scientists, philosphosphers, sportsmen, ploiticians...etc. Are you suggesting to delete them all? If so, go ahead and good luck to you!
# Strawman argument. You are saying infoboxes are great for plants, people are not plants and thefore infoboxes can't be applied to people. You have broken about 4-5 different rules of logic 101 in that argument. Besides, the fact is the horse has bolted and there are 1000's of biographies of all sorts on this wikipedia all with infoboxes. They are there peacefully co-existing with their host articles in loving consensus. They are there because they look fine to a lot of people. 
# It is false to develop an argument based on a questionable "most cited benefit."  There are many cited benefits not just that one. I'm not going to repeat myself but you'll find many good arguments on this talk page. Please read this page fully before shooting from the hip! Your statement: "I can read this 4 screen article, or I can get this 4 line box" in logic 101 is technically called a false dichotomy. The reader is not faced with these two choices at all. There are many others. Here are some simple examples: (i) The reader scans the box, then goes to the article for expansion of facts (just as one does with any summary). (ii) A reader reads the full article, comes back to it at a later date and uses the infobox to quickly locate a fact....and so on. If you use your imagination you'll see there are many valid uses. Please do not impose your view of how you read articles on to the general reader. The average reader is quite different to the average editor.
# You are right about gaining consensus at each page. However calling boxes a "huge editorial change" is an overstatement. There are bigger fish to fry.
# I totally agree with you that no human is one thing. This is precisely my argument why it is interesting to discuss the personal lives and even religious position of each scientist in the article (much to the chagrin of many editors who think you should only discuss scientific acheivements of a scientists). I have been trying to preach the idea that scientists are humans and have interesting lives that are all part of a biographical story. Perhaps you & I are not so different in opinion after all. We have some common ground here to work upon.
# Errr...you are talking to a scientist here. Trying to tell me that my job is vague and undefinable is not received well. Perhaps leave the job to us folks who are good at defining these things. There has been no problem on this score so far.
# Science is just as competitive as sports and countries love to claim certain numbers of Nobel prizes and inventions as much as Olympic medals. Just because science is a thinking-person's sport, doesn't mean we need to get precious about it and treat it differently from ball sports. The reality is science is just as viciously nationalistic and competitive as any sport. I am a practising scientist, so I speak with some knowledge on this issue.
# "Judgements?"  Pray tell.
SuperGirl 09:17, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Reply. Actually, I see this as the thin end of an insiduous wedge. If we allow flags to proliferate like this, where will it end? One day you may encounter people adding stuff you don't like. What will your reaction be when they dismissively tell you that you are too late, that you are "sweating small stuff" and should "go fry some bigger fish"? I hope you will be as reasonable as I am trying to be. Carcharoth 00:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Reply. Carcharoth my Darling, there is no "thin end of the wedge."  This is the wikipedia, which is put together consentually. Any page that goes overboard with flags above the level that the consensus can tolerate will get trimmed down by consensus. It is simple as that. You do not have to worry yourself about insiduousness, as that concept does not apply to the wikipedia. The wikipedia is an evolutionary self-correcting organism. I appreciate your viewpoint and am not being dismissive, but merely trying to help you see how one doesn't really need to panic about flags. They will be sorted out on a page-by-page basis in practice. Wiki-kisses, SuperGirl 20:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Reply. In reality, rather than a slow, organic, change towards a future ideal, you will get individual editors thinking: "why don't I go and put flags on all the infoboxes I can find?", or an editor thinking "why don't I go and put infoboxes on all those Islamic scientists?" Thus you will get horizontal change applied indiscriminately by a generalist across a wide range of articles, cutting across the careful crafting of individual articles by the editors in that speciality. Can you see how that could be (and has been) a problem? Carcharoth 01:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Reply. As far as I can see the flags in the scientist infobox have been tastefully done. If anyone goes silly and puts more in the scientist articles I will help you delete them. But for now it looks fine too me. As for the rest of the wikipedia, it will look after itself...there's no need to be mother hen. If some crazy fad takes over the whole wikipedia, then by definition it is consentual and Jimbo Wales is happy. I'll give you a good example: the amount of "trivia" and pop-cultural references in articles is huge...its so consentual that you, I or Jimbo cannot stop it. So what was once a crazy fad is now standard on the wikipedia...some editors still moan about pop-cultural trivia, but the consensus has their way with it. However, is it such a bad thing? No. I must admit finding myself strangely mesmerized by the wealth of fun trivia and for me it makes the wikipedia refreshing. It's what the people want, and therefore we must run with it. If you have any problems with this, you are on the wrong page. Take your concerns to Jimbo direct. SuperGirl 09:35, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a few more comment. Your argument sounds reasonable, but I fear you are seriously misunderstanding what is meant by consensus. Particularly the difference between 'default' consensus and 'active' consensus. If something happens by default, it is wrong to argue that it has consensus (which properly means discussion). What you can say, is that it has happened by default. But to say more than that is to mislead others. There is also the difference between prescriptive and descriptive, which is always good to bear in mind. You are describing what is happening 'out there'. Policy and guideline discussions tend to veer between aiming to describe what is going on, and how to steer what is going on towards what might be better. If you continually default to "but it's already happenning", then you are taking the path of least resistance, and it is possible (maybe even inevitable) that quality will slowly decline over time. Guidelines and policies help to keep standards at a vaguely defined level, rather then letting things evolve to what might be a very messy end. Carcharoth 11:51, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A Reply to Geogre's Empasioned Speech

message: I have added the infobox to Henri Poincare but the image remains small no matter what size I set it at. Any ideas. Lumos3 13:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems large enough to me.--Chealer 05:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Image size problem

message: Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Biography#Flag_icons. Carcharoth 12:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another flags debate 

message: I added a couple of fields to the template, Botanical author abbreviation and Zoological author abbreviation, each based on the Template:Botanist. These fields are extremely important for articles about taxonomists. I put in a botanist and zoologist field separately, since they are treated under two different codes of nomenclature and in a few cases, taxonomists have two separate abbreviations as a result.
The fields add the text: "Botanical author abbreviation – The standard author abbreviation <abbreviation> may be used to indicate this person in citing a botanical name", or "Zoological author abbreviation – The standard author abbreviation <abbreviation> may be used to indicate this person in citing a zoological name". This may be a bit wordy for the infobox, but I simply used what was already present in the Botanist template. Peter G Werner 17:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added "author abbreviation" fields