Template talk:Infobox actor/Archive 3

message: A quick question - bold character names as per Marisa Tomei (this version) or non-bold as per Kim Basinger (this version)?  I prefer non-bold for aesthetic reasons as I think bold makes it look a bit overstated and "busy".  Also, the notable role is already highlighted by virtue of being in the infobox so I don't think it requires the extra emphasis.  Any thoughts? Rossrs 13:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe it should be bold, as it helps to separate the character name from the movie name.  I've put considerable thought into this, and have decided to bold. Here is a more direct comparison between different versions of Kim Basinger: without bolding and with bolding. Fistful of Questions 23:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your comment.  I guess it's a question of preference.  I've reverted back to unbold text but not because I disagree with you.  It's only that I've asked the question giving two examples, one with bold and one without, so I would like anyone who cares to reply to be able to just look at the two examples and comment.  Now we've got a version showing non-bold with italics but if you want to revert it that's fine - I just wanted an example to refer to.  Rossrs 00:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Movie/tv series names should be in italics, an example commonly used: John Doe (Lost) thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 23:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Have changed to italics. Rossrs 00:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Non-bold is my opinion.  The titles should already be in italics per the MoS, so that makes a clear enough distinction to me whether I'm reading the character's name or the film title.  Dismas|(talk) 08:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Bolding tends to be helpful when there are "character articles" to wikilink. For example in the Kim Basinger article, there are separate Wiki-articles for Vicki Vale etc. so bolding will help this. On other pages where there are no character articles, bolding will just do what it normally does: bold the text. Ekantik talk 03:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand how this is helpful.  If there is an article, the words appear as a link and that's easy enough to distinguish, so why does it need bold text for that?  Rossrs 10:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah right, I see your point. I suspect that it then boils down to a question of aesthetics. Ekantik talk 01:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, yes it's partly aesthetics but bold text is usually used to denote emphasis or to highlight or stress the importance of something.  In this case it's been given emphasis and importance simply by putting it in the infobox so the bold text suggests that even within the infobox it requires further emphasis. Rossrs 22:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I happen to agree with you Zora, and I think POV creeps in here, but I would argue that point seperately.  In raising this question I was looking more at consistency.  Wikipedia assumes an unprofessional look when everyone just does their own thing.  Rossrs 10:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Zora, instead of trying to discredit the work of other editors and make them feel bad about their contributions, I thought it would be plain by now that the Wikipedia community does not generally agree with you. Ekantik talk 06:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  In the discussion of notable roles in a previous section, several other editors agreed that the choice was personal opinion. There's no consensus yet, but there are people who agree with me. I'll keep at it until you guys come up with a metric other than truthiness. Zora 07:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please see WP:POINT. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 08:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether I like it or not, Zora does indeed have a point; I think discussion should ensue about the viability of notable roles in an encyclopaedia that hinges on NPOV. So let's have at it. There are obvious POV concerns in determining which roles are notable for the actor (in that it can be argued that such a role is an editor's personal opinion), and my position is that a list should be arrived at by due reference to reliable source material. This is also a concern because this template is placed on WP:BLP articles as well as for biographies of deceased actors, and this is probably the wrong place to discuss this issue which is why I have started a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Biography#Notable_Roles_disputes_in_Infoboxes. You're all welcome to participate there. Ekantik talk 01:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Notable roles again

message: Should spouses be listed in chronological order with the first marriage listed first or reverse chronological order with the most recent first?  IMDb uses reverse chronological, which they also do for filmographies, but we have already gone against IMDb's formatting for filmographies by using chronological, which I feel makes more sense. 71.114.62.228 22:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with the order that we have for filmographies but for the sake of consistency feel that if we're going to start with earliest first, I think it should apply here as well.  Dismas|(talk) 22:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure if WP:LOW can be applied to spouses, but it seems commonsense to list spouses in order of marriage. Ekantik talk 04:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  order of spouses? 

message: 1) Is there a size limit for these infoboxes?  I was working on one for someone who has won several Emmy Awards, but the box seemed only to be able to handle a few entries.  Adding one more blew it up.  Thoughts?
2) The basic Biography Infobox includes "spouse" and "children."  If we are going to continue to include spouse (per above debate), why not children?
--Vbd 21:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help, please 

message: There is a TfD up for the "death date and age" template, which is for inclusion in infoboxes in a similar way to "birth date and age". Please vote keep/delete on the Templates for Deletion page. --PhantomS 05:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: death date and age

message: I heard this has been talked about in the past, but is anyone but me interested in putting an IMDB (and also possibly IBDB) link at the bottom of the actor info-box as they have in film infoboxes. IMBD has both persons and titles. Just a suggestion. Cott12 Talk 13:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see in the archive this has been much discussed already. Has anyone considered taking a vote? Cott12 Talk 14:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why would a "vote" be taken? thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 14:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it is one possible procedure on Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Straw polls. Cott12 Talk 14:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It has been discussed before at Template talk:Infobox actor/archive2#IMdB again.  The discussion is lengthy although there were only a few contributors.  I'm opposed to it for a couple of reasons - the type of information relating to an actor on IMDb such as biographical information is not necessarily well sourced or well written. I think we should only link to sites that provide unique information, or information that is above and beyond what we could achieve ourselves. (as per WP:EL).  Also, I see IMDb as a rival site.  I accept the numerous links via "external links" but I think putting it into the infobox implies that we consider it to be especially important or relevant.  It's the kind of endorsement I think we should avoid making, especially considering that it is commercial.  We rather naively give it a lot of free advertising already but you'll notice that it gives us none.  Of course, being a commercial site it is not about to direct its visitors to a rival, and yet we do it in thousands and thousands of articles.   We should be wanting readers to use Wikipedia as the best and most authoritative site, not providing them with a prominently displayed link that serves no purpose to us and actually directs readers away from us - the exact opposite of what our aim should be. Rossrs 15:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have also witnessed several discussions over at WT:RS about how IMDb is not even a reliable source. See here for example. Whereas IMDb may be used as a source for filmographies etc, it is not an infallible source itself. Ekantik talk 04:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree. We always add it to the end of the just about every entry out there and it a space for IMDB is already made available on Template:Infobox Film so it makes sense to add it here. No one source is 100% accurate or reliable and people shouldn't just be relying on one source for everythin (it could be published biographies contradict each other after all). IMDB happens to be major resource for film information and not having the link would be unusual. (Emperor 13:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree too, so long as it's optional. Then, if there's a particularly bad example on IMDb, the link can always be removed from the specific template/ page concerned. Andy Mabbett 13:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I think a filmography is an essential piece of information, and IMDB is the best source for it. IMDB is widely regarded as one of the basic references for film and film people, so I really can't see the point of deliberately excluding it. I strongly feel it should be there as an option, but evidently, a few people don't want it there. Is there any way of reaching consensus on this issue? Iamcuriousblue 00:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe there is.  I agree with you about the value of a filmography and that IMDb is a good (maybe the best) source for it.  The question is not merely should we link to it, but should we link to it in the infobox, and most of the comments here relate to justifying an external link, but not specifically to reasons why the link should be in the infobox.  I oppose it, and I think the infobox should be used only for key, relevant information. I don't understand why any external link other than a performer's official website should be featured so prominently.  Aside from the points I've made above, to me it suggests that if a person is looking at our articles, and they read the infoboxes first, they are being given a helping hand out of Wikipedia and onto a rival site.  It's less of a problem at the bottom of the article.  I don't understand why we are so willing to advertise commercial sites and make it easy for people to jump right to them - they certainly don't return the favour - and I don't think we are helping Wikipedia by implying that if someone wants a comprehensive insight into the actor's career, the best place to go is elsewhere. Whether IMDb is a good, bad or indifferent source of information is entirely not the point here and I would be making the same comment about any such site.  If you're seeking a consensus, I'd be interested in hearing some arguments for having it in the infobox.  To put it simply: it's used in thousands of articles at the bottom of the article (I have no problem with that) but what will be the advantages of moving it to the infobox?  thanks Rossrs 06:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not only is it a useful resources but it would make it consistent with Template:Infobox Film - no one source is going to be too accurate but homepage, IMDB and possibly AMG. (Emperor 14:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My previous comment was intended to specifically address the question of whether a link to IMDb should be in the Infobox.  I am opposed to that idea.  But I do agree with Rossrs that having it as an external link is entirely appropriate.  (I'm even in favor of including the link to the IMDb filmography and only having partial filmography listed in an actor's article, but that is a different discussion.)--Vbd (talk) 04:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  IMDB in the Infobox 

message: Can someone fix this template. There is an extra "-" somewhere. Look at Al Pacino for an example. I couldn't really figure out where the extra "-" was in the template. :) Garion96 (talk) 02:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be fixed now. There has been some edit warring with the height field. --PhantomS 02:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks, Garion96 (talk) 02:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fix needed

message: Curiously, if most people who have discussed it on this page agree that height shouldn't be in the actor infobox, why is it still there? --PhantomS 17:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's remove it and find out. According to the page history, User:SteveLamacq43 has reverted the last 4 attempts to remove it. --Conti|✉ 17:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

text: There was a supermajority, which, although not a consensus, is an accepted WP procedure. --PhantomS 17:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's trivial, it's of little importance to most people, it's not clear what it would take to prove that it was correct (male actors wear lifts and exaggerate their heights), and it actually can change. People tend to get shorter as they age. Zora 22:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I understand, I agree with the decision to remove "height". Thanks Zora, 4dhayman 22:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I've been consistently opposed to the use of this field, mainly because I think it is trivial, and for most actors, is of no consequence.  Most actors are of average height, so I see no point in recording their height in the infobox. If someone is 5'6 or 5'7 - what difference does it make?   It's not a defining attribute, and there is no uniqueness to it.  It's about as relevant to their careers as their shoe size, eye colour or whether they are left or right-handed.  It is of zero importance.  If their height has significantly contributed to their career, then it should be discussed in the article because the explanation about why it contributed to their career is more important than the mere statistic.   Also, a number of people who want to keep the field have stated that there is no WP:Consensus to remove the field.  I would like to note that the inclusion of the field was challenged very shortly after it was first added (Template talk:Infobox actor/archive2) and a number of editors discussed removing it.  That discussion was never resolved, but if it's going to be said that there is no consensus to remove it, it is actually more truthful to say that there was never a consensus to add it in the first place.  Rossrs 07:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you, it is of no consequence 4dhayman 01:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Height is important if you're hiring stage actors, while lifts are possible, they're uncomfortable to wear for long periods. For this reason, height is generally included in actors' portfolios. I tend to agree that it's largely (or should that be highly) irrelevant here. If you're Tom Cruise (1.70m), you probably get everyone else to bend down, anyway .... ; but then why isn't build included? (1.88m, available for Shakespeare and children's parties) Kbthompson 12:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Height

message: How do people feel about flags in these infoboxes? I am coming to dislike them intensely as they are frequently simplistic and reductive. The 'rule' seems to be that a person's place of birth and death gets a big flag of the appropriate country next to it. This can be misleading, since a person's place of birth is not always their nationality (Richard E. Grant is not a Swazilander, for example). And it can be pointless - why does Charlie Chaplin need a Swiss flag in his box just because he happened to die there - he wasn't Swiss and had little connection with the country. It would make more sense to have flags to indicate a person's nationality, but even this is complicated since many actors have dual nationalities and there are endless debates over how to describe them (see e.g. Talk:Nicole Kidman). Furthermore, flags may look pretty but they are also political statements; for example, saying that someone is from  England or  Wales rather than from  Britain is a divisive matter that opens up more debates (see e.g. Talk:Christian Bale). Do others agree or am I alone in this? Cop 633 03:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I find them pointless. I saw them recently added to the place of birth and the place of death, both, of course, the same flags. See also Wikipedia:Don't overuse flags. Garion96 (talk) 03:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Pointless per Garion. I've seen stupid and unnecessary disputes about whether the flagicon should be placed before or after the birthplace/deathplace. Ridiculous. WP:FLAGS should at least become a guideline if not policy. Ekantik talk 03:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is still causing ructions at Talk:Nicole Kidman. Maybe a line for "Citizen of" in the box, above birth and death would go some way to solving this. Even though some people can't get their heads around the difference between technical citizenship and nationality either...  Grant | Talk 05:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it's pointless and I think the flags are being used mainly for decoration - doing it because we can rather than because we should.  I don't see that it serves any informational purpose.  There is a lot of inconsistency as well, with many -but not all- American performers having state flags rather than the national flag, and while many people would recognise "Texas" or "California" or "Florida", how many would recognise the flag more easily that the written word?  I really don't like the idea of saying "citizen of" etc as it is often too complicated a situation to be adequately addressed in the infobox.  The infobox should only contain the most basic factual information and place of birth is sufficient.  Further clarification belongs in the article. Rossrs 09:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I find myself agreeing, they don't add anything. I would also prefer to just see Birthtown-state/city/county; at the moment most of them read like the start of Adrian Mole's diaries - an example, Clapham, London, England, United Kingdom (with a couple of flags, of course, and me expecting it to carry on "Europe, The World, The Galaxy"). The infobox should just carry the executive summary, the text should carry the load. The Nicole Kidman page is ridiculous, carrying so much personal information as to be hurtful, and Helen Mirren's page is changing every five seconds, as some bright spark wants to add her Oscar win, without reading it in the sentence immediately preceding! Citizenship is a complicated question, it is remarkably easy to be a citizen of more than one country, not so easy to be born in more than one. Kbthompson 10:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally think it's important to add 'UK' after 'England', 'Scotland', etc. Otherwise it risks perpetuating a tendency among non-Brits to think English and British are synonymous; this can be irritating to some Brits at first glance.Cop 633 16:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

text:  And of course someone can be a citizen of one country but self-identify as another. I just noticed that Liam Neeson, who self-identifies as an Irish Catholic as far as I can tell, has the (now abolished) Red Hand Flag flapping over his infobox because he happens to have been born in Northern Ireland. You can explain such complexities in words, but a flag means only one thing, and because they're colourful and attract the eye, they can easily mislead. Cop 633 14:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

text: (indent reset) Flags are unneeded imo. Too many look a-like and can be misleading, at best they are mini-décor which serve no purpose over then consuming space and making the infobox multi-coloured. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 15:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Flags

message: Are there plans to add an entry in the infobox for the SAG (Screen Actor Guild) awards? This award is considered a notable, major award among actors and actresses in the television and film industry and considered a precursor for who to watch for winning higher profile major awards (such as the Oscar at the Academy Awards ceremony).  lwalt 07:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to make a proposal, wording etc. Guy (Help!) 21:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Screen Actors Guild award

message: I wasn't sure where to bring this up, so I thought someone here might be able to help. I noticed on the Hiroyuki Sanada article that someone had uploaded their own drawing of the actor as the picture in this infobox... is that allowed?? (Sorry if this is in the wrong place, I'm tired and ill and confused. :P) Thanks in advance for any help.  Tartan 23:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Picture

message: I would like us to add the hCard microformat (see also Wikipedia:WikiProject_Microformats) to this template. I can advise on the required mark-up, but I'm not familiar with template code editing. Andy Mabbett 11:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How would this be useful for an actor infobox? Btw, the only fields that seem to apply are fn, bday, and url. --PhantomS 18:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I replied on my talk page. Andy Mabbett 19:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: hCard Microformat

message: It appears that the image caption size is specified by a combination of stylesheet "font-size:90%" and the small tag. I think either one or the other would be good enough. Currently it doesn't display well on Safari for being too small. —Tokek 11:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Caption font size a problem 

message: What about nominations for awards? Should there be a category for these? Or would this be too lengthy for some actors? --Theunicyclegirl (talk, review me!)  18:21, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Award nominations 

message: This infobox supports many awards other than Academy Awards, Emmys, and Tonys, but those three are the only ones listed under the preformatted Usage section. Could someone add the others under there as well? --AMK1211 20:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Awards

message: I've seen some articles' infobox colors being used differently than the others, some in an POV sort of way. Is/should there be a special key (similar to Infobox musical artist) for the colors? If not, then why is it there? --wL<speak·check> 19:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The only specific use of colour I have seen is when the infobox is used on someone who is deceased, and the colour is changed to grey.--NeilEvans 20:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Should we remove the  field completely and let the template decide automatically what the background color should be? Kudret abi 02:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I say remove it. There's no reason at all for it to be there, other than the highly dubious practise of using silver for deceased actors (and if need be it can be replaced with a living= field). I've seen plenty of articles where users are seemingly using their favourite colour (Bae Yong Joon, for example). PC78 02:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I went ahead and removed it. The background color is now selected automatically. It will be the  usual yellowish color by default, except if  is specified in which case it will be silver. Since this is the scheme that most articles are using, the change should only affect those that use the unusual background colors such as pink, magenta, fuchsia etc. -- Kudret abi 05:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's good.  Consistency is important.  Rossrs 08:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Any specific use for the bgcolour attribute? 

message: There seems to be a lot of confusion over whether to use the year of the film or the year of the award (often one year later) in the infobox; both formats are widely used. There should be a definite guideline on the template's page which format is intended. -- EnemyOfTheState 16:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be year the award was won. Sometimes it's even two years after the film came out. But the field is for awards, and that's what the year should refer to. This also allows for accurate cross-referencing with awards ceremony articles. The filmography section is where all the years of films go. --Melty girl 03:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with Melty girl. Rossrs 08:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Year of film or year of award? 

message: I recently noticed that someone added the SAG Awards to what has already become a long list.  I am deleting this addition because there was no process or consensus to add it in the first place.  At least when the international awards were added, there was a lengthy discussion about it first (see above).  Thoughts?  Outcries of rage?--Vbd (talk) 21:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with that change entirely, and I would suggest to remove the Golden Globes as well which is basically a vanity category and often redundant as actors win the Golden Globe and Oscar for the same role on many occasions. The Golden Globes are the poor man's Oscars (and Emmys) and reasons of internationalization don't apply, like it was argued with the BAFTA and César Awards above. The infobox should remain as concise as possible imho. Sloan21 16:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I think the best idea would be to delete ALL of the awards (my personal opinion; many would probably prefer to keep the major three) and simply put in a miscellaneous section that can have more things added as necessary. (See the Album Infobox page for an example of what I mean. -- Shiori 05:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What if the awards were in a WP:NAVFRAME hidden by default? Or we could come up with a more concise way of listing them? Or stick them in an extra template? It makes sense for the list of awards to be standardized and glanceable, so I'd hate to throw them out completely... Vagary 19:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Awards (AGAIN!) 

message: In response to an edit war over whether Charles Nelson Reilly's partner of 27 years could be called a "spouse," & in line with suggestions on that article's talk page, I've added a new line "partner" directly under "spouse" for entering the names of unmarried long-term partners/companions. --Yksin 00:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For Wikipedia purposes, it is not relevant as to what he could be called, it is only relevant what WP:RS generally called him (if anything). Regarding the infobox, since there may be situations where WP:RS provide proper justification for including one's partner in the Infobox actor, yea, there should be a "partner" parameter and how that parameter is used may be left up to those dealing with the issue in the article. -- Jreferee 18:40, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Partner 

message: Hi,
Nandi Awards are the Awards , given by Andhra Pradesh State Government , India. Its having 40 years of history. pelase add Nandi Awards to Wiki Infobox: Actor.
You can refer to the link Nandi Awards , For verification.
Thanks in advance,
Regards,
--Sultankhadar 05:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Nandi Awards

message: Hey, is there any chance of implementing other awards and nominations like the Young Artist Awards category? Ryan 21:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Young Artist Awards 

message: I can see some minor value in using fields for notable spouses and maybe even notable children, but most children of celebrities are not in themselves notable.  Do we really need a field for them?   Example Joan Fontaine has a daughter "Debbie Dozier" born 1948.  If the infobox is intended to condense and segregate the most important facts about a person, I don't see how this piece of information qualifies.  I also think that before a field is added that potentially effects thousands of articles, there should be some discussion.  Rossrs 06:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: i think the problem with the instructions: Insert the names of known and especially notable children of the actor. it should read simply: Insert the names of especially notable children of the actor.  besides...it's kinda difficult to list the names of 'unknown' children. --emerson7 | Talk 15:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I think the "children" and "parents" fields are valid and useful enough, given that there are quite a few famous acting families. Would it therefore also be an idea to have notable siblings in the infobox? Perhaps replace these two fields with a more generic "Notable family" or something? PC78 16:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Spouse and children

message: Hi guys, could you please help me to insert the National Film Awards to the template? It is the most senior, important and pretigious award given in India. It's given annually by the government of India. Filmfare Awards already exist here and we all use that, but I think National Film Awards have to be there too, even more. I've added that, but when I tried to display this on an actor's infobox, it didn't work. I turned to administrator who worked on this page but apparently he is busy. Please help if you can. Thank you, Shahid • Talk2me 11:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Already displayed. It's ok. --Shahid • Talk2me 10:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[National Film Awards]] 

message: With regards to the above discussions over the extreme POV of the "Notable roles" field, and the excessiveness of the various "Awards" fields, how would people feel about replacing both with "Award winning roles"? At the very least it would sidestep the POV issue, and would also prevent the infobox from being overly long. PC78 21:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A suggestion... 

message: I removed it as it was breaking the template and adding extra }}'s to the page. -- Ipstenu (talk • contribs) 03:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On this subject - could new additions to the infobox please be discussed before adding?  I for one would strongly oppose the inclusion of a field for astrological sign. Rossrs 04:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: yeah...really.  what's next, shoe size? --emerson7 | Talk 18:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Can we have favourite colour too? Cop 663 19:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Astrological sign