Template talk:Infobox person/Archive 1

message: Hello, has there been any discussion regarding an optional "member of" or similarly named field in the Infobox?  It would be especially useful to have that for articles about individuals who are for example a member of multiple governing boards. Kurieeto 14:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added an optional "boards" field to contain this information.  It sits between the party and religion rows, and can contain former and current board of director/trustee/governor memberships. Kurieeto 02:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Member of field 

message: In particular, if an article or more specific template uses this box, then they should get "persondata" metadata for free. Right? Pcb21 Pete 14:45, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would concur. I've just posted a message about this over at the Persondata talk page, suggesting that Persondata is merged into this template. Mike Peel 21:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This box should be merged with [[Wikipedia:Persondata]] 

message: Guys, sorry! i did something terribly wrong. But now I changed it to its previous one. 192.38.83.6 09:51, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sorry guys 

message: The way this sits at the top of each page is not very pleasing to the eye. How about making it float:right?  It would make all the articles that use it look much nicer. - Dave C.talk | Esperanza 06:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Formatting issue 

message: There seem to be a number of dead fields in this box.
I cannot get entries in the employer, birth name and other fields.
Also, should there be a background color to the header on this box?
trezjr 02:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Has anything been done about this?  What is the resolution status of the issues raised here? — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 20:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  At the time this comment was posted in January, the template documentation listed these parameters but they were not actually implemented. This issue is resolved. -- Zyxw 06:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Dead" fields 

message: I tried adding nationality as an option, but 

*|- 
 <tr><th style="text-align: right;">Nationality</th>
<td>{{flagcountry|{{{nationality|}}}|}}{{#if:{{{nationality_2|}}}
  |  /<br/>{{flagcountry|{{{nationality_2}}}|}}
  }}

from Template:Infobox NBA Player was not very useful.  Can anyone help?  You may have to look at the edit this page screen to see the full code I included.
Kenallen 00:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see WP:FLAGCRUFT.  Flag icon code should emphatically not be put into this template!  Whether to include a flag icon at all, for any infobox, is currently a contentious issue, and far more to the point, there are many cases in which it is not appropriate at all. If flag icons will appear it must be because someone (hopefully with consensus) has made a human judgement call to manually add that to the "nationality" field at that article. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 20:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  At the time this comment was posted in April, the template did not have a nationality field. This has since been resolved. The template does not include any flag icon code. -- Zyxw 06:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Nationality

message: Why does the "relations" field display as "Parents", or why is the display for "Parents" triggered by the "relations" field? I just saw that at Tom Parker Bowles, someone had listed his younger sister under "relations", which caused her to be listed as one of his parents. --Metropolitan90 17:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This was fixed on 7 June 2007 in an edit by User:Skeetidot. -- Zyxw 09:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Relations

message: *Conclusion: Clearly  can be merged into  right now with zero fallout of any kind (just redirect the former to the latter, voilá).  Just do it.  The problem of mismached fields between the latter and  will need sorting out.  I think there should be a consensus discussion, probably based on a survey of topical bio userboxes to see what they do, what field names they prefer, then when the field names are settled, a bot can can be devised change them all and change to , then  can be sent to TfD after no more pages use it.  Immediately for  and later on for  I think it would be prudent to keep an eye on their "what links here" and keep those blank, then after a month of blankness TfD them away so people stop referring to them at all (I may be showing my colors too much here; I think that the vast majority of redirects in the "Template:" namespace should be deleted; they only sow confusion).  As a further step, I would like to suggest that the ultimately resulting  "megatemplate" be used as a model for all others, and that they (the topical ones I mean, e.g. ) be brought one by one into basic field-name conformity with .  Some day  can be made into a meta template and a whole lot of infobox code can be removed from all topical bio infoboxes, which would instead simply call this one and provide it custom fields for that particular topic.  Ambitious, but it can be done. PS: Another option for the second half of the merge would be to simply add code to  that recognizes the  field names, but not document them, such that they eventually just fall out of use; if we did that, all of these templates could be merged today.  The choice of whether to do that or whether to do it more cleanly is most a question of whether anyone participating as the bot-creation skills to do it the cleaner way. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 20:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Woops, I take that back; there's a fieldname conflict between imagesize and image_size in  and , respectively.  It is the only fieldname conflict between the two.  Again, this could be handled in a klugey way by changing 's code to simply accept either parameter name, or someone can create a bot (or spend 8 days in AWB >;-)  to normalize them. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 20:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This template already accepts both image_size and image_size. I think it is okay to redirect the  to here. I think the administator would want to protect thist template, becuase Infobox celebrity is fully protected. However, I want to leave this template unprotected (or semi-protected) to adapt more fields so that we can merge other person-related templates into here. eDenE 00:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is best to merge/redirect to one template (infobox person).  It is simple to get the code to accept all the parameter names.  After that, you just need to decide which names are best and have a bot go through and swap out the old names to the new names in all the transcluded articles.  When the bot is finished, someone just needs to remove the old names from the template code.  A bot could do the brunt of the work in a day or two. Simple. Therefore, I say merge/redirect, then TfD. —MJCdetroit 02:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: bot requested. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 12:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I feel that there needs to be documentation for depreciated fields.  I was just editing the page on Mark Cuban and it took way too much time to figure out what a  was and I think that this talk page is the only documentation that mentions it.  Depreciated subjects cannot just be ignored and hope they go away.--Zeal17 (talk) 07:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Conclusion

message: I merged Template:Infobox Celebrity and redirects to it in here and cleaned up several redirects to Template:Infobox Biography. The merge notices had been in place for about two months and consensus seemed to favor the move so I went ahead. I haven't protected this template because it looks like things are still being adjusted, but it should be locked down soon. If someone wants to run a bot to standardize the parameter and template call names that can be done now too, but is not strictly necessary. --CBD 11:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. bot requested. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 12:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks to me that the redirect of the  to  has left some ugly looking articles.  See this for an example (as long as nobody fixes it first).  BTW - looking at it via diffs doesn't show the redirect.  Was that the intended result?  -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 22:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I examined the Alan Turing article as it existed at the time of your posting, also using a copy of the infobox code from that date. It seems to have displayed properly both then and now. If you are still noticing any problems, please be specific as to what the issue is and I will try to resolve it. -- Zyxw 07:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Redirects completed

message: I have gone through all the translcusions of  and changed them over. The template has now been simplified, there should not be any problems (cross fingers) but some one may need to revert for a while if there is until they get sorted out. :: maelgwn - talk 09:29, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bot work all done

message: A number of persons have received several notable awards and honors.  Currently, these are either worked into the article to some point, placed in a list in a separate section or ignored.  I have been using a table at the bottom of the infobox to neatly include this information (see George J. Fisher). I would propose a new field for "awards and honors" to appear at the bottom of the infobox.  --Gadget850 ( Ed) 12:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Support.  Seems like a reasonable addition, and would do away with a page-bottom template of dubious usefulness. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 20:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Awards and honors 

message: I just added this infobox to Alan R. Moon and the Nationality is appearing twice in the infobox.  I double checked and it's only appearing once in my source code.— Timotab Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!) 00:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I saw the same issue in several biographies and noticed it was listed twice in the actual infobox coding.  I removed one instance of it, so it should be fine now. RyguyMN 01:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  Where do I see the coding for the infobox?  Not that I intend to change anything, but seeing the source would help me see how it all works.— Timotab Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!) 01:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Never mind, looking at the page wiki source, I understand now.— Timotab Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!) 01:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bug in template (nationality)? 

message: Which of the templates listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Infoboxes or :Category:People infobox templates are suitable for merging into this one; and which should we tackle first? These seem likely (listed with their key unique fields; some of which may apply more generally):
* - alias (use "other_names"), charge, penalty & status (e.g. "in prison", "executed", "released"). 
* - Papacy began, Papacy ended, Predecessor, Successor, other ("other popes named...")
* - years_active, notable_opponents
* - style, education, restaurants, television
* - ethic(icity), alias (use "other_names"), credits, agent, status (used for "marital status")
They lack a number of the "generic" fields used by this template.
:Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 13:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure that merging more specialized infoboxes such as these is a good idea - perhaps they lack some of the more generic fields for a reason? To use  as an example, fields such as "height" and "weight" have been removed by concensus as being too trivial for inclusion. Also, do we really want to be flooding this infobox with potentially dozens of specialist fields? I'm not saying it's necessarily a bad idea, but I think we should proceed with a bit more caution here. PC78 10:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fields or parameters such as "height" and "weight" which may be trivial for an actor could be notable for an athlete.  As stated in the documentation: "Do not use all these parameters for any one person. The list is long to cover a wide range of people. Only use those parameters that describe why the person is notable." I agree that some of the specialized infoboxes (including Infobox Actor) should not be eliminated. The candidates for merger should be those where Infobox Person has a similar look and and would require few additional parameters, as was the case with Infobox Biography and Infobox Celebrity. -- Zyxw 20:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The next merger?