Template talk:Infobox writer/Archive 1

message: There is a similar template at Template:Author. Carcharoth 13:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I find the other template a bit lacking. -- LGagnon 15:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. But what should be done about it? It falls under the WikiProject Books purview, so I'll comment there. Carcharoth 19:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Similar Template 

message: Perhaps the definition of "period" should be more related to when the writing was actually done rather than published.  It is particularly non intuitive with works that were published posthumously.  Also with the publishing definition this window can, in principle, be extended every time some lost essay or collection of letters is found and published. --WCVanHorne 04:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree - it should be the period when the writer was actually writing works which were subsequently published i.e. unpublished childhood eassys not included.--JBellis 08:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Writing Period 

message: could this template be used on a screenwriters page? -- 216.232.214.23
:I assume it could. It's meant to be very open for any type of writer. -- LGagnon 15:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  screenwriter 

message: Per wiki guidelines, should this be Template:Infobox writer ? *Sparkhead 12:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: People don't worry too much about naming conventions when it comes to templates. The important thing is that the wording is clear, not what the capitalisation is. Carcharoth 13:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitalization 

message: I believe there is place to add the language of writing in this template since, especially nowadays, writers may write in several languages and nationality alone cannot tell us what language the writer is using. A few examples:
*Franz Kafka - Czech writer, wrote in German
*Vladimir Nabokov - Russian writer, wrote in Russian and English
*Hayyim Nahman Bialik - Ukrainian writer, wrote in Hebrew
*Isaac Bashevis Singer - American writer, wrote in Yiddish
*J M Coetzee - South African writer, writes in English
*Isak Dinesen - Dutch writer, wrote in English
*Samuel Beckett - Irish writer, wrote in French and English
I could go on, but I think I've made my point. AshcroftIleum 02:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a good idea. Easily verified data point. I agree it should be added. Carcharoth 18:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Language 

message: User:Flammingo recently tried to add parameters for religion and political opinion. I was asked why it didn't work - the reason is that the edit only added the parameters to the visible bit, not to the actual template code (the bit with lots of #if and !---> bits). Don't touch that code if you don't know what you are doing! I've removed the addition and raised this here for discussion because I don't think that religion and political opinion are suitable for a writers infobox. They are more suitable for a religious figure's infobox, or a politician's infobox, but not a writer's infobox. If a writer is noted for his or her political opinion or religion, this fact needs to be mentioned in the article, along with a clear and careful explanation of why it is relevant to the article. Just mentioning it in an infobox with no explanation is the wrong way to do this. Discussion would be very welcome. Carcharoth 19:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree 100% Xanthoxyl 02:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religion and political opinion 

message: This parameter was recently added. While it is more relevant to a writer's infobox than religion or political opinion, there was a discussion above that concluded that it was not relevant. Indeed the previous parameter "main work" got removed after that discussion. This new 'Magnum opus' parameter would just be redoing the work that was involved with adding the 'main work' parameter, so I removed it. If anyone feels consensus has changed, please discuss here. Carcharoth 19:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 'Major Works' makes the most sense to me. I would remove 'Debut Works' as well (these are usually either minor and unimportant, or could fit into the 'major works' category), and just list two or three seminal works. AshcroftIleum 07:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem then is which works to include and which not to include. This is precisely the sort of nuanced information that is better provided in the article, instead of an infobox. An infobox should be reserved for clear data points, like name, date of birth, etc. Anything more than this, and it risks becoming an introduction to the article that skews people's first impressions of the subject of the article. Carcharoth 11:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't really see how an infobox can skew opinions one way or another, but it seems to me that if someone just wants to get a general idea of the writer he/she would be better off if two to three major works are listed. For most writers this would not be an issue (for example, you may like Hemingway's To have and have not, but it is The Sun Also Rises that made him famous and defined his style; you may think Tropic of Capricorn is a better book but Tropic of Cancer is more widely read; Underworld may be a better book, but White Noise is the one people think of when you say DeLillo, etc.) Much like the Actor infobox, we are not trying to encompass the writer's whole work, just give a sense of it. I don't really see the point of an infobox about a writer that doesn't name any of his/her work. Debut works, as I've said above, doesn't cut it. AshcroftIleum 16:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Magnum Opus (II) 

message: Someone added wife and children to the template without prior discussion. I removed them for now and claim there is no real reason to add them at all. First, such details are usually irrelevent to the writer's work. Second, such a listing could not only be too lengthy for an infobox (several wives/husbands, several children), but also provide an opening for other irrelevent details of the writer's private life, (parents, brothers and sisters, maybe pets, shoe size...). Lastly, the purpose of the infobox is to give us a general idea of the writer and position him/her in terms of period/genre/movement/etc. It is not meant to present a full account of his life and work - that's what the article is for. AshcroftIleum 07:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: An old discussion, but an interesting one. I totally agree with AshcroftIleum. However, Edgar Allan Poe failed an A-Class review a couple months ago and one reviewer criticized that the infobox was missing information about relatives. (I think it's just getting harder and harder to pass anything these days). --Midnightdreary 14:55, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wife and Kids? 

message: I tried to add  to J. K. Rowling, as her image is up for rfu, but it doesn't work because the 200px paramater and closing brackets are there; the image doesn't show up.  Can anybody mess around with parser functions to automatically close the image off when template brackets are detected? Hbdragon88 07:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you subst it? There isn't really room for this template inside the infobox. I'd suggest that you copy and paste the text from  into the Caption parameter, maybe with  and  around it. Xanthoxyl 02:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I added subst to it.  Either the image didn't show up or 200px]] showed up (If I added the brackets manually to have the image show up)). Hbdragon88 23:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you tried placing it at the beginning of the caption field? --PhantomS 23:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just tried that.  Apparently someone inserted <nowiki> brackets in there or something, as it doesn't work. Hbdragon88 00:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, all I can say is I just did it and it worked fine for me. Xanthoxyl 11:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding rfu 

message: Instead of a field that says 'debut works', it would be a better idea to have the field say 'important works' or something to that effect. Most often a writer's 'debut work' is not their best nor their most influential work.ILuvTea 10:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, see discussion of "Magnum Opus (II)" above. Isn't it about time we did something about it instead of conducting this circular discussion? AshcroftIleum 18:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur. Maybe it could just say "notable works"? Is someone going to change it? I'm new here so I'm not sure how it gets done. It seems that people are in agreement that some change needs to occur. Uluwulu 07:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not a good idea. Who determines what is notable? Even among academics who study individual authors, there is debate about what is most "notable" or "important," so inevitably the field would descend into edit wars. These kinds of theories (what was the writer's most influential work, etc.) should be discussed in detail in the article, with all sides' opinions clearly articulated. Awadewit | talk 00:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that it is a good idea to choose Important Works rather than Debut Works; for most authors, it's usually easy to choose their most-well known or admired work, and for ones where it is most difficult (imagine doing this for Shakespeare!), it could be discussed on the talk page.--Gloriamarie 21:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Debut Works field 

message: In that Wiki policy discourages lists in general, and in that the info box is one big list, is having an infobox mandatory for all writers?  In the case of William Shakespeare, for instance, I find the info incredibly redundant, subject to challenges, and it only increases the size of an already long article.Smatprt 14:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, infoboxes are not mandatory. Awadewit | talk 00:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are info boxes mandatory? 

message: While well-intentioned, the influenced/influences section just isn't working.  What objective criteria can be used here?  Most authors are incredibly well read and thus are influenced by hundreds of other authors.  Similarly, any major author is read by everyone.  Who wasn't influenced by Shakespeare or Dostoevsky or Hemingway?  On every author page I watch this part of the infobox is the subject of near-constant edit-warring.  Something as nuanced as influence needs to be dealt with in the text of an article -- not in the infobox. --JayHenry 19:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  This section asks us to take writers who may have influenced the article subject in completely different ways and list them side-by-side in an out-of-context list.  It's inevitably misleading.  You'd never get through FAC if you did that in the body of an article, or at least I hope you wouldn't; it shouldn't be encouraged in an infobox either. —Celithemis 20:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that this is a ridiculous field. Any set of influences is in the end probably going to be original research anyway, even if each individual influence can be demonstrated. Often the influences listed in the box are not even discussed in the article. The box should stick to easy to verify facts, not interpretative theories regarding a vague "influence." Awadewit | talk 00:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Okay, so people agree.  I don't want to spark a widespread edit war by removing these in bulk, so I'm going to try to solicit further opinions by contacting the Books and Novels Wikiprojects.  I see two options -- one would be to remove the influences/influenced section completely, the other would be to only allow influences/influenced if they are specifically mentioned in the body of the article.  I see either as acceptable, though (I think) would prefer outright removal. --JayHenry 19:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I realize that this is a relatively old conversation, but I was just coming here to raise much the same idea.  It would seem to me that, if these sections are left in the infobox, they would need to be sourced.  I would advocate removal of the sections.  —  MusicMaker5376 21:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Influenced/influences section 

message: I'm going to take the liberty of making occupation optional: We've hit a situation where the infobox is causing layout problems, and so I have to cut it to a minimum, and it seems pointless to have to cut more relevant information while leaving that in (And it's not like you can really place a poet-dramatist-short story writer-critic like W.S.Gilbert cleanly anyway!) Adam Cuerden talk 16:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent choice. Awadewit | talk 00:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Occupation field