Template talk:Infobox actor/Archive 2

message: I have started discussing this under the "Added emmy awards" section with User:PhantomS and am moving it here to make it easier. Russian Wikipedia is using a "years active" field.  An example is - Ingrid Bergman  I think this could be useful here, as it would give a quick summary of when the individuals actually contributed to the career for which they are noted, and places them more quickly into a cultural context.  It's already being used for musicians, so I think it has some potential for usefulness here.  What does everyone think?  Rossrs 01:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I support this. It would be useful for judging activity, since many article filmographies I've seen do not completely document the actor's career - either through only including major works or by ignoring tv and stage work. This addition would make it easier to see that the actor was still active, even if he or she is not doing films.--PhantomS 23:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I added a "Career Active" field to the sample. --PhantomS 03:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the information could be useful, but I prefer "Years active" as per Template:Infobox musical artist. Rossrs 12:05, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I prefer "Career Active", since "Years active" has other connotations. --PhantomS 17:07, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  ... Such as...?  (Apologies if I'm missing the obvious!)  David Kernow (talk) 17:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Mostly connotations to do with old age, or that it was their only career. Considering that a career can be started and stopped for numerous reasons, word choice is important. For example, there are actors, such as Grace Kelly, who become something else later in life. In addition, there are other actors who take breaks from acting to raise children, but then return to acting later on in life. For Grace Kelly, it could be said that she had active years as both a princess and as an actress, but it could not be said that her acting career was active through both time periods. --PhantomS 20:35, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But 'career active' does not have an obvious meaning.  Rossrs 06:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

text: "Their career was active from x to x appears to have an obvious meaning to me, unless you have a better way of saying, "acted from x to x"? --PhantomS 20:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know what you mean by "career active".  My point is that in isolation, being looked at by someone who may not be familiar with this discussion, it's meaning is not clear.  It's also awkward.  I can't think of any other context where the exact phrase is used.  This needs to be kept simple, and also consistent.  I don't see why we have to reinvent the wheel when the Template:Infobox musical artist uses "years active" and it seems to work.  The different types of infoboxes should be standard as much as possible and this is a clear example of a case where standardisation can be easily applied.  With the Grace Kelly example you gave above it doesn't work.  This is an actor infobox so it's obvious that in "years active" we are talking about her acting career, not her career as a princess.  Rossrs 10:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Even though it's probably not the best field name for the information, "years active" does seem to be the best choice for standardization purposes, unless someone comes along with a better two word field title. --PhantomS 16:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't realize that the field had been added until I noticed several articles in which it was used.  I also notice that it got reverted at one point as trivial.  So I will just clarify why I suggested it - it places the career into a timeline and an historical context that would not otherwise be obvious without reading the entire article, and I think it's important as it is the acting career that the person is noted for.  As such it has direct bearing on the most significant aspect of their notability, far more than fields such as height, spouse etc.  I've also expanded the definition of the field in the template so as to avoid confusion.  Yvonne De Carlo was noted as "58" which I guess is the number of years she acted, rather than the span of years, so maybe the wording was a bit ambiguous. Rossrs 00:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Years active

message: This template existed as Infobox actor until about a month ago, which seems in line with wiki capitalization guidelines.  I've moved it back (all redirects still in place).  Is there a separate guidelines for Infoboxes that states otherwise?  *Sparkhead 12:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I believe so ("Template:Infobox Sentence-case name") although I can't recall where exactly I read it!  Regards, David Kernow (talk) 01:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wish you would have made this move a couple weeks ago.  I just spent a bit of time the other day changing many of the "actor"s to "Actor"s.  :^)  Dismas|(talk) 17:05, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A couple of weeks ago it was lowercase. On Oct 20, it was moved from "a" to "A" with the edit summary "moved Template:Infobox actor to Template:Infobox Actor: To follow casing used by other infoboxes."  I simply moved it back. A little digging found no consistency, but lowercase used in the examples in :Category:Infobox_templates, uppercase in other examples elsewhere, but what seemed to be a majority of lowercase names.  I checked "What links here". "Template:Infobox Actor" has approx 125. "Template:Infobox actor" has over 1400.  I would like to see a consistency there, but if one does not exist it should remain with what has the most direct links. Spark* 17:19, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Given we could ask a bot owner to propogate a change, which do you (and anyone else reading this!) prefer...?  "Template:Infobox x" strikes me as a long version of (the as yet non-existant) "Infobox:x", in which case x would begin with a capital. Regards, David (talk) 17:32, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is that (as yet non-existent) "Infobox: x" being discussed somewhere?  I have no view one way or the other, I'm simply looking for consistency (and in this case, defaulting to the one with more active links to it). Spark* 20:46, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  So far as I'm aware, the idea of a separate namespace for infoboxes has been suggested at least once. Meanwhile, my Wikipedia experience suggests "Template:Infobox Sentence-case name" seems to be a norm, probably as Sentence-case name needn't be a single word. Regards, David (talk) 02:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitalization 

message: :I think we should chuck in an IMDB option. Who agrees?
:--lincalinca 03:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Already discussed under Colours / IMDB link / height. Please do not edit template without first getting responses, especially on a field that has already been discussed on here. --PhantomS 06:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: IMDb link to add?

message: It might be interesting to add the actor's Bacon number, if it is known. Kidburla2002 11:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't like the idea.  It's not like their birth date or something like that where it has some relevance to them.  While Bacon numbers are interesting, he's just a random actor that happened to have this game associated with him.  The same thing could easily have been tacked on to Burt Reynolds or Mel Brooks.  Dismas|(talk) 13:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with Dismas.  It's a pop culture phenomenon that is notable in itself, but the notability of the game does not extend to any individual actor, except Kevin Bacon, and this is the only actor article where mention of Bacon numbers is even appropriate. Aside from this, it would be impossible to manage - every time Bacon makes a film, numerous actors in that endless web of association, change their Bacon number.  Rossrs 13:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bacon Number 

message: A weight field was added, undiscussed.  It isn't needed as it isn't important information (nevermind that it changes so much as to be meaningless).  If an actor's weight is important enough to warrant mention, and it rarely is, it can be done in the article. --*Spark* 12:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While I don't like the field I would like it if people stopped preaching the "Oh you have to get my permission to add a field" - if a consensus was needed for everything do you think pages would be editable and things like WP:BOLD would exist. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 12:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Any template with thousands of links shouldn't be changed without discussion, that's fairly standard practice.  Adding a field with a minor edit tag is not helpful.  In fact, per the discussion on height above, that field should probably be removed as well.  Unless we want to add hair and eye color too. --*Spark* 12:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's a practice that some are subscribing to; people do not have to *not* edit things because you would like to have a rudimentary discussion prior to implementation, it is called being bold, if a situation is generally non-controversial then consensus is generally un-required, in this case I can not see a need for a "weight" field, and as it *is* now a controversial matter should the user wish to reimplement it he will now require a consensus. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 13:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm generally for it for articles.  High use templates are something else entirely.  --*Spark* 13:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Entirely different.  We've had the situation in the past where fields such as "height" and "spouse" were added without discussion, and as you can see from the discussion that resulted above there was no consensus to delete them.  If exactly the same group of editors had discussed the fields before they were added, and "voted" in exactly the same way, there would have been no consensus to add them.  It's interesting that the principles of WP:Bold and WP:Consensus could achieve such an opposite result, based purely on timing.  I'm glad you noticed the "weight" field and opposed it early, before it became entrenched.  Rossrs 13:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One can be equally WP:BOLD in removal as in addition, I believe, if your argument is the correct one. IMO, "weight" should only be used in templates where it serves a real purpose, such as for wrestlers, and "height" for basketball players and the like. Anywhere else, it's WP:CRUFT. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 13:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weight 

message: Currently, the use of this template causes a large amount of white space when it is transcluded on pages along with the Featured Article star. I have been attempting to fix this issue, but it does not seem to be working.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Examples of this are Angelina Jolie and Jake Gyllenhaal.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Since it's not affecting other non-featured articles, I'm guessing it may have to do with the featured article template. However, other featured articles using other infoboxes are fine so maybe a recent change to this template is the cause... -- Ladida 06:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This seems to happen with a lot of other articles that I've seen as well. I'm going to look at how the template coding differs from other infoboxes to see why it claims so many lines. --PhantomS 00:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Reanalyzing those examples you gave, it is the contents box which seems to add the white space. In my opinion, the contents box should be allowed to intermix with sections that follow in order to prevent white space buildup. --PhantomS 02:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: After discussing it with Ryulong on IRC, it seems he was referring to the white space at the top. Therefore, after searching the template code, I found an unnecessary  in the infobox and removed it, which should fix the problem. However, I still feel that the issue of the contents box creating so many blank lines is one that needs to be discussed. --PhantomS 04:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  White space 

message: i'm, wondering if the 'spouse' field should somehow be expanded. it seems silly to me to ignore 'significant relationships' that have outlasted many of the marriages now documented. --emerson7 | Talk 16:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a proposal and an example visual? --PhantomS 02:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: An example of a significant relationship that didn't result in marriage would be Spencer Tracy and Katharine Hepburn. --PhantomS 17:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  spouse 

message: Please don't archive information relevant to an active discussion.  I know the page is large but the previous height discussion is relevant to the current one.  Once this discussion is complete it can be archived. --*Spark* 21:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive 

message: Has anyone thought about making a Template:Infobox director?--AshadeofgreyTalk 21:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think an Infobox Film Crew Member or something of that sort would be more useful, since a lot of the fields would be the same between director, producer, editor, etc. --PhantomS 23:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't seem to find that template--AshadeofgreyTalk 23:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't exist yet. However, in my opinion, it would be a more practical infobox for handling directors, producers, etc.. Unfortunately, I haven't thought of enough fields to make it a useful infobox. The fields I have thought of are bgcolour, name, image, imagesize, caption, crew position, birth date, birth place, death date, death place, and Academy Awards. Without some more specific fields for crew, it seems more practical to expand Infobox actor into a more generic film cast/crew infobox instead.  --PhantomS 04:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I also proposed a template for infobox directors on the Biography talk articles.  I think it would be a good addition, when the infoboxes for Alfred Hitchcock, Roman Polanski, and Sam Peckinpah are unsatisfying. Fistful of Questions 00:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I support such a infobox. We have Steven Spielberg, Ron Howard, George Lucas, Quentin Tarantino, Yimou Zhang (House of Flying Daggers, Hero), Ang Lee, Ron Howard, Sam Raimi (Spider Man 1, 2, and 3), Bryan Singer (X-men 1&2, Superman Returns, The Usual Suspects), Christopher Nolan (Batman Begins), Tim Burton, Gore Verbinski (Pirates of the Caribbean), M. Night Shyamalan, Rob Reiner, Louis Leterrier (Unleashed, The Transporter, The Incredible Hulk 2008), James Cameron, Steven Soderbergh, John McTiernan (Die Hard movies, The Hunt for Red October), Irvin Kershner (James Bond movies), John Glen (James Bond movies)...anyway, you get the idea. Almost everyone knows these names and they deserve an infobox. --Maniwar (talk) 02:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Before deciding upon the creation of a new director (or crew member) infobox, there should at least be some fields that warrant the new infobox. Any ideas? --PhantomS 03:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For my suggestion above, I would say Best Director Oscar and if I think of anything else, I'll add it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Maniwar (talk • contribs) 14:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: oops, I forgot to sign --Maniwar (talk) 15:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Infobox director should be the same as Infobox actor except with height removed, as a director's height is irrelevent to their work, and Notable roles maybe should be changed to Notable works.  And any other changes you see fit.Fistful of Questions 16:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What was the outcome of this? --Maniwar (talk) 13:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Template:Infobox director]] 

message: For those who are interested, the original bgcolour setup treated an empty bgcolour the same as bgcolour=transparent, instead of using the default color. The only way it showed the default was if the field was not included altogether. Therefore, a straight copy and paste of the sample shows no default color. The CSS hack that I did shows the default and only overwrites it if the bgcolour field is not empty. Furthermore, it was thoroughly tested in a sandbox. --PhantomS 00:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All fixed in rev. #97827151 - leaving the field empty, or with white space will result in the default colour, sending "transparent" will result in no colour, sending a hex code will result in that colour. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 00:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. That is certainly a better and cleaner way of doing it. Moved the change down to the awards fields as well. --PhantomS 00:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: bgcolour fix

message: Should be bgcolor even be a field or should it be silver by default, as I see silver being used in nearly every article.  Or should silver only be used for deceased actors, and the default orange color should be used for living actors?  In that case, the bg color could be determined by whether or not the "deathdate" field is filled in or not.Fistful of Questions 16:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bgcolor again 

message: I propose the expansion of another field: academy award nominations.  This gives a better idea of the expanse of the actor's work.  James Stewart may have only won one academy award, but he was nominated for several more, and seeing only one academy award in his infobox doesn't give a good idea of his degree of contribution to the academy awards, as often the difference between a nomination and a win is slight.  Number of nominations is commonly used in gauging an actor's contributions.Fistful of Questions 16:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the infobox is most effective if fields are used sparingly.  If it is overpopulated with a lot of facts and figures it defeats the purpose of being a simple, quick reference tool, even when there is a good and logical reason for adding the field.  I agree with what you say, and Stewart is a good example to use,  but I think adding nominations for Academy Awards will allow for the entry of nominations in the other key awards such as Emmy and Tony Awards.  Some entries such as  Meryl Streep or Katharine Hepburn could become unmanageable as more and more information is added.   I think we have to do our best with the information we provide and hope that people look at the articles to gain a true picture of the subject - the infobox can never fulfil that role.   Rossrs 09:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Academy awards 

message: Films have it as field.  So should actors.  I'd add the field myself but I am unfamiliar with the syntax. Fistful of Questions 03:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why should it? IMDb is an external links, while they might be in some infoboxes they do not belong in an infobox, they belong in an external links section. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 08:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not?  Films have it,  has it, why not this one as well?  Besides Wikipedia, IMDB is probably the most well known site that everyone looks at for actor bio and filmography info.  Dismas|(talk) 08:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree that films should have it.  I think linking to any commercial site implies some kind of endorsement and while I don't see a big problem with IMDb being listed under "external links", I don't think it should be advertised too prominently, and to me, the infobox is too prominent.   Let's at least let people at least look through our articles before giving them a link to take them away from our hard work.   It would be a bit like saying "here's a really great article about Angelina Jolie but before you read it you might like to check out her IMDb entry".  Rossrs 09:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, no, having it in the infobox does not say that at all.  Often I want to got IMDb from the wiki article about a person, and I find it annoying to have to scroll down to the bottom of the page and search among the external links to find it.  IMDb deserves a spot in the infobox, and its not commercial or endorsing at all.  If you are going to have the actor's official homepage, have the IMDb link.Fistful of Questions 15:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How many websites prominently link to their competitors at the top of their pages?  Um, zero? Why should Wikipedia be so helpful in doing this?  Just because we are not a commercial site does not mean that we should be helping readers off our pages - we should be trying to attract readers and keep them here.  If you have to scroll to the bottom of the page is that causing you a huge inconvenience?   IMDb as a commercial site should thank us for the free publicity and endorsement we give it.  Wikipedia, on the other hand, as a free site operating under a policy of neutrality, should be a bit careful in the way it selects and promotes commercial sites. Rossrs 20:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry but your argument makes no sense.  Films link to imdb in their infobox, so should actors, as IMDb is an excellent source.  Adult infoboxes also link to imdb.Fistful of Questions 20:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So far you've suggested two points - 1. it saves you scrolling and 2. we use it in the film articles so it follows that we should also use it in the biographical articles (but two wrongs do not equal a right).  Neither is a strong enough reason to add the field.  Furthermore, IMDb is not an excellent source for biographical information.   Much of it is horribly written and there is no attempt to verify anything as factual.  The biographical information is suspect at the very least, and unsubstantiated rubbish at the very worst, and yes, putting the link in the infobox is a huge endorsement.   The filmographies are generally excellent though.   Rossrs 08:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  IMDb is a user submitted source, often flawed with non-factual, unverifiable information. Please provide more stable reasons rather then it saves you scrolling. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 09:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe you're not new to debates, but attacking straw arguments is not the proper format to win.  The reason isn't to save scrolling, the reason is because it is more convenient, and imdb is the best source there is for movie materal.  Nearly all content on imdb is true, and most information about a person, such as filmographies and trivia, come straight to imdb.  Linking to it is not "endorsing a rival site".   Encyclopedias are not a competition.  The purpose is to help convey information. Fistful of Questions 21:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The infobox is designed to provide a snapshot of the person, with the most important, or most frequently sought information presented in a simple,  easy to use manner.  If we decide that of all the websites that could possibly be linked to, IMDb is not only the most important site, but is so important we have to provide a link in the infobox, how is that possibly anything but an endorsement?  The benefits you mention are minor and they don't outweigh the problems.  This encyclopedia is in competition with other sites.  Its success depends on people coming to this site and contributing either by editing or by donating.  Suggesting to them that they should click on a link and move on to another site, does not help this project one iota.  You'll notice that IMDb does not provide free advertising for Wikipedia as naively as we provide it for them.  SteveLamacq43's description of IMDb as a "rival site" is completely accurate.   We've got external links at the bottom of the page.  IMDb is usually listed first.  That's more than enough.  Rossrs 06:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

text: IMDB is an excellent database when it comes to films. However, when it comes to actors, excluding filmography, any detail is user submitted without the need for a source and so could be incredibly unreliable. Whilst it is my opinion that little enough is sourced on WP as it is, linking to a rival site even less referenced is just folly. SteveLamacq43 01:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: IMDB does ask for sources when you provide them with biographical info.  How well they check those references, I don't know.  Dismas|(talk) 10:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  IMdB again 

message: Since a lot of other high-use templates have been fully protected lately, why has this one been spared? --PhantomS 09:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Frankly I think all this "high-risk" protection is a bit silly, semi will do, unless of course us mere users are not trusted any more :-\? thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 09:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Protect template?