Template talk:Infobox actor/Archive 1

message: To match all the other infoboxes, I copied some of the code from Celebrity infobox, so that you don't have to do the silly image tagging, as infoboxes should do that automatically. The only 2 problems I see so far are this:
#It doesn't leave the field hidden if there's no picture
#Any existing ones Ladida used she'll need to fix because it will cause the picture to appear twice.  I can lend a hand to fix that too, let me know if you need it.
I'm obviously not too skilled with the codes, so Lad or Jack- if you could fix it so the image field isn't mandatory that would make this infobox hopefully be used more by the community. --TheTruthiness 05:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sigh, the image thing seems wonky, it was working fine but now it isn't.  Or it was Jack reverting the changes, like I say on Jack's talk page it's a royal pain that needs to be done.  Maybe a mod/admin can let us use a bot to fix it? --TheTruthiness 05:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Administrators noticeboard is your friend Mad Jack 05:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added it. --TheTruthiness 06:04, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I altered it using the code from Template:Infobox_Celebrity. Thanks for the link TheTruthiness! I don't know if it works properly in all the pages so check all the pages that you used this on. Hope this helps. -- Ladida 00:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pic still don't seem to work. --TheTruthiness 01:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about now? -- Ladida 08:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Seems fine to me also. Nice work Ladida. --TheTruthiness 08:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. -- Ladida 08:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image Kinda Fixed 

message: Can we make the birth name field optional? A lot of actors use their real names, so I feel silly adding "Helen Elizabeth Hunt" in that field when she goes by "Helen Hunt". --TheTruthiness 03:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birthname 

message: Should the template have an imdb_id that links to their IMDB profile? --DrBat 21:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: see discussion above under "Colours / IMDB link / height" -plange 21:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  imdb_id 

message: Apparently there is a "rival" template entitled Template:Infobox oscar winning actor. There are hardly any articles that use it, but of course, its editor (who worked hard on it, blah blah blah) is going to try and promote it by replacing every oscar winning actor's infobox with his/hers, screwing over the consistency any good encyclopedia strives to have, just because s/he likes to see their work on pages instead of just suggesting something to the dominant template (like I'm doing.) In order to cut this off at the head, and because it's a good idea, this infobox should have an option for "Oscar-winner:" and a way to display what the Academy Award{s} won and the films they were for. 24.126.199.129 07:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Academy Award winner option

message: In my opinion, this is going to cause more bother than help. The majority of notable roles now are ones for which the actor/actress is nominated for an Oscar. There's going to be duplication as the two topics will have pretty much the same info in. HamishMacBeth 13:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with User:TheTruthiness. But the bottom line is, having more than one actor infobox floating around is bad. 24.126.199.129 09:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  If Oscars have their own field, then what will be put in the notable roles section? Also, I've just found that when using both 'notablerole' and 'academyawards', for some reason Academy Awards always appears above Notable Roles; I don't know anything about the code, so I can't find what the problem is. CelebHeights 13:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The notable roles will (if applicable) include notable roles they didn't win Oscars for, obviously.  We shouldn't force notable roles in for people who won Oscars, guys like DeNiro for example.  I'd say no more than 3 notable roles/Oscars combined. --TheTruthiness 00:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Notable roles AND Academy award

message: I saw that the Daniel Radcliffe's page (and several other) use  to specify birthdate. I think it may be a good it to use that template from now on and add it to the usage section as a reccomendation. 
Taken from the above page, the result it gives is this: 
What do you think?
--Andromeda 05:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's kind of redundant, don't you think? Also, every year you have to update their age. I'm sure readers of the article can calculate the actor's age if they wanted to. Regards, Ladida 08:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It won't need to be updated - the template will do the math each time it's displayed.  I agree it's a bit redundant though, and if it becomes widely used, we will need to look at how to fix the broken line in articles such as Jodie Foster. Rossrs 13:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I was proposing it exactly for not having to update each year and also people not having to calculate how old someone is. Provisionally, we could add a new field to add the birthdate as "1989|7|23" and use it to call  in the template. So, if (for example) birth_date is set, use it and call ; else display birthdate. --Andromeda 05:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see. Sorry, I misunderstood you. :) Ladida 05:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use birth date and age 

message: If Wikipedia does strive to be a cohesive encyclopedia, should we try to enforce consistancy between articles in related fields?  As in, having the same actor template for each actor?  Because when first coming to Wikipedia, I noticed that Actors like Humphrey Bogart had a detailed actor infobox, while others like Gregory Peck didn't.  Or, Marlon Brando has an Oscar Wins section in his box, yet others don't.  It just irks me to see radically different boxes for each person.  What do others think?  Should the reigns on the actor infoboxes be tightened for the sake of giving Wikipedia more uniformity in their articles, or not?  Discussion anyone?
--Carnyfoke 18:40, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There should be more conformity among the articles. Gregory Peck's article has a biography infobox so maybe that should be changed to an actor infobox.--NeilEvans 18:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  For what it's worth, I prefer this infobox over any of the others. Rossrs 02:50, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This looks more professional and it conforms to other templates like the musical artist template.--NeilEvans 14:26, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uniformity amongst actor templates? 

message: Is Wikipedia's constant references to Academy Awards an example of widespread POV?
I ask this question because several editors have studiously prefaced the beginning of numerous articles with "(name of actor) is an Academy Award winning/nominated actor" as though the award or the nomination is the defining moment for every actor.  I don't believe that it is. 
Audrey Hepburn is an example of what I think is so wrong and biased about choosing the Academy Award as the ultimate achievement,  to the point of making it a field in this infobox, while completely ignoring everything else that person may have achieved throughout their lifetime.  Hepburn also won an Emmy Award, a BAFTA Award, a Golden Globe Award, a Grammy Award, a Tony Award, a Screen Actors Guild Award and a New York Film Critics Circle Award,  and even if she'd won a Nobel Peace Prize, the only thing we seem interested in is her Academy Award.  Does anyone else think this is misrepresenting her unique achievements in this example, and demonstrating our own POV towards the Oscar in all other examples?   Could we please (a) get rid of it.... or, if not (b) change it to a more generic "awards" field?
Question 2: Do we need to show Roman Holiday as both a "notable role" and an "Academy Award winning role"?  Is the repetition necessary?  Rossrs 15:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Academy Awards field

message: So far on this page there are people speaking for and against various fields such as "height", "spouse", "notable roles" and others.  There is no consensus on this matter.  
As far as I can see - and point me to another discussion page if I'm wrong - these fields were added into this infobox without discussion and without consensus, and editors who don't agree with these changes are just forced to accept it. I've noticed on several articles,  when editors remove something like "height" as irrelevant, it gets reverted and/or they receive messages on their talk pages telling them to stop. This is not how it is supposed to work.  It's not right that these things can be added without the courtesy of seeking consensus but when someone wants to remove something they are told they need to get a consensus.  The actor articles currently use several different infoboxes, and each infobox contains a slightly different set of information.  Can we please try to reach some consensus on this so that the infobox can be sorted out once and for all.  Thanks Rossrs 14:24, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Height has been a field as long as I can remember, and I see no problem with it as long as it's linked to a source. It's interesting, and probably won't be mentioned elsewhere in the article. Notable roles is a fairly recent compared to it, but I think it works fine. Bar a couple of topics where people will find things to argue over, an actor's notable roles are pretty obvious. The Academy awards field works alongside it to make it even more simple e.g. Johnny Depp. Spouse I can't provide a case for. Unless the actor has a famous spouse, then you just get a red link in the infobox, and if it's known, it'll be mentioned in the article anyway. As for the articles using different infoboxes, I don't know to what you're referring, but I don't think that's true. As long as the person involved doesn't branch out and direct, produce etc e.g. George Clooney, this is the only infobox that should be used, and most often is. HamishMacBeth 14:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  Sorry, I should clarify about the different boxes.  I worded that extremely badly.   Some also use the Celebrity box, and others the general Biography box, although they are in the minority and I've seen a lot changed over to this infobox recently.  Looking at different articles, even where this infobox has been used consistently, there is no uniformity, mainly because people are using different fields.  Also, using different colours for the heading gives them a more "random" sort of appearance, as another example of lack of uniformity.   I think that Wikipedia should be about standardisation, consistency and a particular kind of "brand recognition".  ie similar articles should have a similar look.   Also with regards to Johnny Depp as an example where the "Academy Awards" field works well - he hasn't actually won and I don't know if listing nominations is a good idea.  How would we go with Meryl Streep and her 2 wins and 13 nominations, and Katharine Hepburn with her 4 wins and 12 nominations?  We'd have to break their infoboxes off into their own articles :-)   Rossrs 15:14, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

text:  I agree with you about standardisation, and I believe the coloured name background was changed because the original colour (white) didn't work on every page, it also left grey to be used for dead actors. Something like that, anyway... I think if Oscar nominated roles they weren't mentioned in the Academy awards field, then they'd just be under notable roles, but this way you at least know why they're notable. Robert DeNiro for example; for all his notable roles, he's been Oscar nominated, so the info box would be pretty big either way. HamishMacBeth 17:24, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I hadn't looked at Robert DeNiro before.  That looks (I'm surprised to say) very good. It's neat and tidy and not uglified with a lot of unnecessary bold text.  Jack Nicholson is an example of what I think is bad.  It's full of bold text and I think it makes the infobox look too busy and complicated.  Plus it's got too many "notable roles".  TheTruthiness suggested limiting notable roles to 3 and that would be an improvement, although it still leaves the door open on a lot of POV issues in choosing the 3.  I also think listing Academy Award roles is POV as per my comments above regarding Audrey Hepburn.    Rossrs 21:08, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

text:  I wholeheartedly agree with you about the Jack Nicholson article; I think it looks horrible! I've had a go at cleaning it up. As for Audrey Hepburn, I can't, for the life of me, understand why her name has a turqouise background, so I've changed that too. HamishMacBeth 00:13, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry to say this, but I think Nicholson still looks bad.  He's had too many Oscar nominations - it's a sea of wikilinks.  If it was just the Oscar wins plus 3 notable roles, I think it would look way better. Rossrs 09:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As an experiment I've brought the Jack Nicholson infobox over and edited it.  I thought we could perhaps use it as a kind of sandbox to try out ideas. Rossrs 13:02, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

text: How about just stating the number of Academy awards and nominations instead of listing all of them since they should already be in the article itself? Just a suggestion... Anyway, which fields are we keeping? Also, should we standardise the background colour like it was before? -- Ladida 02:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That may work but I'm not sure I understand exactly what you mean.  Would you like to edit that to one article just so we can see what you mean, and see what it looks like?  I think standardising the colour is a good suggestion too, although some other editors have noted in article edits that grey was for deceased actors, and the other colour was for living actors. That also seems ok to me.  Rossrs 09:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I think DeNiro's currently looks awful, I've changed it in the past but it keeps getting reverted.  Oscar nominations should NOT be included in the infobox, only wins.  If we do nominations, then if an actor was considered for a notable role but it went to someone else, should that be put in the infobox too?  Oscars are considered the ultimate in acheivement, and that's by actors themselves.   Plus you can just look at what a big deal the awards are treated to every year, it's just way bigger than an Emmy, Tony, BAFTA, SAG, Golden Globe, etc.  I think the Academy is full of people who are horribly out of date and don't actually watch most of the films nominated, they just vote for people they like.  But the fact is the Oscars are a huge deal for actors, regadless of what Rossrs and I think. --TheTruthiness 05:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True, the Oscars are a huge deal.  Seems most people like having the Awards there, and that's fine.  If that's what people like, I'll stop making a big noise about including the wins, but I agree with you that it should be for awards and not nominations.  What I like about DeNiro's is not the content, but the style.  No bold text!  I think you should stick to your guns and keep reverting DeNiro, and when you do maybe link back to this discussion in the edit summary.  I can understand you would be sick of doing that but at least it would show that it's not just your whim.  Rossrs 09:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Agreement on what fields can be used

message: This is a suggestion and a bit of an experiment.  I was thinking it might be helpful to have a test case that we could use here to try out different ideas, rather than editing and re-editing in various articles.  Consider it a sandbox.  I thought, anyone can just edit this so that it looks how he or she thinks it should look and provide a brief summary of the characteristics, with a link back to each edit.    And if this doesn't work, we'll have to think of another approach, but it might be fun.  Rossrs 13:02, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for biting.  This is exactly the sort of reply I was hoping for, and I'm very happy to see you here.  Cheers. Rossrs 20:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem.  Happy to help. :-) -Shannernanner 22:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

text: This is very interesting.  Three edits so far, and three rather different ideas.  I think it's very healthy :-) I think the Academy Award field looks very good.  I also liked Shannernanner's idea of moving the date to the front of the title.  I kinda think the years for the notable role films are helpful if this is designed to be a quick glimpse as it shows at what point in the career, these roles were played without having to look at the article.  It's a matter of opinion though.  I was thinking it might look more "standardised" if there was a line break before the film titles in the notable roles so that the title is not split and leave the "in" after the character name.  What do you think?  Rossrs 13:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the "Academy Awards" field as well, though I don't like the bold.  I'm rather ambivalent about the having years in the "Notable roles" field; I can see reasons both for and against.  I do like the line break, with either the "in" or the hyphen, I'm not sure which I prefer of those either.  If the "Height" field is to remain, it should not cite IMDb, as it is not a verifiable reference for trivia.  (Question:  Can we "go" more than once on here? :-) ) -Shannernanner 16:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also think IMDb is not a reliable source, but for height,  I don't know what is reliable. As for the years, I think consistancy is always good.  The awards have years, so I think the roles should too.   Answer: you "go" as many times as you like :-)  Rossrs 21:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

text: It looks good, doesn't it? I'm not a fan of bold text in infoboxes, but I think the Academy Awards looks a bit better with it.  It all looks really good.  There seems to be a feeling among several editors that IMDb is not reliable as a source for things like height.  Do you realize the link goes to Carol Kane?  She's not quite as tall as Jack, I notice ;-)  Rossrs 14:37, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a quote on her page to which I was linking, but I don't know how to direct it to a specific part of the page. HamishMacBeth 13:14, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I missed that.  OK, it says, in part, "he is no more than five foot seven or so himself." That's not a very strong reference. IMDb is often unreliable and this is a quote from another person, and it's not even precise as it says he's "five foot seven or so".  "Or so" could be an inch either way - who would know?  It's no big deal because we're only discussing the template appearance here, but in the article it wouldn't be reliable enough as a source. Rossrs 23:26, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Jack Nicholson infobox

message: I think :Template:Infobox Celebrity serves a better purpose. It is a lot neater, and was used in a simple fashion. This one gets really long, and thus cuts into the text, not to mention the pov things like notable roles, and the random stuff like height. I would like to see the celeb one phased back in. It looks a lot better imo. Davey4 12:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A celeb ad an actor are two things. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 14:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

text: celeb infobox is rubbish. Arniep 02:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: I prefer the old infobox

message: Can someone adjust this template to be aligned to the right-hand side of the page, like most every other infobox? -- Hawaiian717 21:21, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is? — Could you provide a link to a page where its not on the right? thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 21:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what happened (don't see anything in the template's edit history), but its fixed now.  I was seeing the misalignment on William Shatner in Firefox.  When I tried IE6 it worked correctly, so I reloaded the page in Firefox and its now right-aligned there as well. -- Hawaiian717 21:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alignment 

message: I decreased the width from 24 to 21, because a few of the entries I've seen have way too much unnecessary empty space. Seems to have worked out good. Hope that's ok with everyone Mad Jack 20:02, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Width

message: Is there any objection to using the  template in infoboxes?  The template has survived a nomination for deletion and it does no harm that I can see although I've encountered resistance to it being in infoboxes.  Anyone?  
My reasoning for using it is as follows:
# While editors may think that it's simple math that anyone can do on their own, the truth is many adults cannot easily do the math.  I know several who would have to think about it.
# It makes an infobox, which is basically a quick reference, even quicker to use.
# It does no harm.  Not very much space is taken up by "(age:XX)".
# It automatically links the date so that user preferences display the date correctly.
Thanks, Dismas|(talk) 13:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The second but the first would be nifty as well.  Dismas|(talk) 03:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Strongly oppose widespread use, per Rossrs. Shannernanner 00:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Strongly in favor. Quick reference is the whole point of the infobox; it does not "dumb down" the encyclopedia in any way to make available at quick glance as much relevant information as possible. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 00:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a matter of opinion, and in mine it does "dumb down" the article.  It saves the reader from thinking. Heaven forbid, we should in any way stretch or challenge the reader, and let's not encourage anyone to improve their numeracy skills, if it's such a problem for them.  The date of birth is there, the date of death is there -  the calculation of age is redundant.  BTW we keep adding and adding to these infoboxes and every time we do, they become less of a "quick reference".  The number of fields we now have is excessive. Rossrs 02:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, again, challenging the reader is laudable within the article; it defeats, however, the at-a-glance purpose of the infobox (which gets too long sometimes). But now I'm only repeating myself... ;) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 15:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you are repeating yourself, and I think you should stop before I start seeing your point of view!  Too late!  Argh!  ;-)   Let me explain what I meant by challenging.  I think the age calculation is redundant and unnecessary because it takes data from within the infobox and uses it to make a calculation that it does not need to make. Most people should be capable of performing this calculation, if they really want to know how old someone is, but if it genuinely helps people scan the infobox and find what they need more quickly, I can understand the rationale.  But when we say "lots of people can't do basic mathematical calculations, so we'll do that for them, and then they'll never have to learn how to do it for themselves", which paraphrases comments that have appeared here, and elsewhere on this subject - that's an entirely different thing, and it's bad.   I can live (unhappily) with one rationale but not with the other. Rossrs 15:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL! :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 16:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

text: It does not add any information which is not already available. Shannernanner 01:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, not factual; it quickly answers the question, for example, of anyone who wonders, "hey, I wonder how old that child star I used to watch is today?" It is a quick reference and an opportunity to do a simple little thing with a live encyclopedia that paper can't touch—and, this template could also be made to use any individual computer's clock to create the same effect within a CD Wiki. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 01:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a fact that if one's birth year is available, their age is also available.  Just because it it is a "quick reference" doesn't automatically make it necessary or enlightening. Shannernanner 01:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Necessary? No. Enlightening? The potential is more than strong enough for me. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 01:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For those that say that it is redundant, show me one bit of the infoboxes that isn't redundant.  The birthdate, location, nationality, notable roles, spouse, children, etc. is all already in the article.  There are only two things that aren't redundant, the picture if there isn't a second image in the article somewhere and the colored bar at the top of the box.  And the bar, IMO, is virtually useless since the average reader probably has no idea that different colors signify different things nor do they know where to find out what the colors mean.  And then for those that say there's too much info, I don't see agree there either.  On most resolutions/monitors the infobox probably doesn't even fill the page from top to bottom on one pageview.  Take a look at Economy of the Bahamas or some similar article for a crowded infobox! Dismas|(talk) 03:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was not implying that it was simply redundant to information within the article body; it is redundant to information within the infobox itself. Shannernanner 04:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

text: hmmm. edit conflict.... I was just saying the same thing.  I agree with Dismas's point about the colour of the bar though. Rossrs 04:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I find infoboxes to be very useful in general, a lot people want to get basic information on a person quickly without reading the whole article.  Also, people are primarily interested in a person's birth date to compute their age, and this provides it easily for people.  Regarding the comment that it is not enlightening since one can compute the age from the birth date, I don't think it's harmful in any way, and some people do have trouble doing the math, and that does make their lives easier.  I don't think snobbery that people should compute the age in their heads is really a reason to oppose this template. -Bansal 06:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that infoboxes serve a purpose and can be very helpful but I don't think it's snobbery to try to ascertain and maintain a particular standard in all aspects of Wikipedia, even regarding something as seemingly minor as this point.  At what level do we wish to aim Wikipedia?  The reality is that we can't aim it at everyone. The majority of our articles assume that our readers are fairly bright.   If this is the level we have generally accepted as a standard, we should try to aim at that level, not above and not below.  We don't deliberately aim below this level in the vocabulary or style of our text, or in our subject matter or concepts, so why is it snobbery to suggest that we should not aim below the level on this point also?  Rossrs 08:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree with you if this template was being used within the article; it does not (IMO) dumb down anything in any way to include this data at a quick glance within the infobox—since that's its purpose anyway. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 14:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, at least it's good to know you would agree with me if you could, but I accept that you can't. Neither can I agree with you, Sir. ;-) Rossrs 15:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL! RadioKirk (u|t|c) 15:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

text:  Whats the big deal? Its a nice useful feature.. doesnt harm the infobox and just helps make an article more comprehensive.. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 14:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think this takes away from intelligent users, whereas "dumbing down" the vocabulary in the main article would do so.  In any case if I may take the discussion in a different direction, do you think it is appropriate to remove this template if someone adds it?  We have a user that is reverting to the previous revision (in violation of Wikipedia policy in my opinion) every time he notices someone adding the template.  Can we agree that while this template is here that it is valid to use it, and probably shouldn't get into edit wars over its use?  -Bansal 15:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we can safely argue that discussion is virtually always better than edit wars... ;) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 16:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

text: For the record, I can see Bansal's and RadioKirk's views about "dumbing down".  Fair enough, that was probably too strong a sentiment on my behalf.   As to the second issue of the template being removed from articles, I think discussion is best, and it's a great shame that the template was added in the first place without discussion. I think it's a common problem that something can be added to an infobox without discussion and agreement, and yet removing it - which should be just as easy - is far more difficult and often comes after a lot of ill-feeling has been provoked.  This is back-to-front and illogical.   The "template is here" is the unfair result of someone adding it without establishing any kind of consensus. If an editor is removing it from articles, my opinion is that the editor in question should be given consideration and I personally believe that the editor is more right than wrong.  The template should never have been added to the infobox without the discussion that is currently taking place and as the discussion is still very much active, we should consider that the template is not yet ready to be used.  Please let's avoid an edit war.  Whatever the end result, this discussion is the right course to follow.  Rossrs 16:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I think to say that nothing can be added to Wikipedia until it has been peer reviewed would violate the spirit of "being bold" when making edits.  And I believe it has survived an attempt to delete it, has it not? -Bansal 16:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Rossrs is absolutely right in that discourse is the right course; Bansal is absolutely right in that making deletion as easy as addition throws WP:BOLD out the window. Obviously, there are exceptions: if there's an immediate, powerful consensus to remove something or it's obviously damaging in some way, then out it goes. IMO, however, that does not apply here. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 17:04, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  I wonder what remaining objection Rossrs has since he/she agrees with us on the "dumbing down" issue... -Bansal 17:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First, Rossrs is a he. And I have no remaining objection.  I withdraw all of my remarks. The template has survived a vote for deletion and that is really the deciding factor.   Sorry, I should have looked for the discussion sooner.   The discussion is     here, so yes you're right.  I was forgetting that the nomination for deletion was for the generic template, which obviously can be used in any bio infobox, including this one, so after all this lengthy discussion, I guess the original question is answered.  I was arguing against its use in this particular infobox, but it's a moot point.  You're also right about  "being bold",  but a lot of editors hide behind the "being bold" thing.  If someone adds something to an infobox they are "being bold".  If someone removes it they are a "vandal".  That's a problem. As for throwing WP:BOLD out the window, sometimes WP:BOLD should be thrown out the window (or at least put on the window-ledge until a decision is made).  From BOLD : "being bold in updating categories and templates can often be a bad thing" and "It is usually worth proposing any changes to templates and categories as above, on talk or relevant WikiProject pages, prior to making any change."  It's no longer applicable to this situation, but for future situations, yes, a bit of discussion and agreement first is the way to go. Rossrs 17:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

text: So, if I'm reading this correctly, there is a majority in favor of the template?  So, can I safely continue adding it to infoboxes?  (P.S. How many ":" can we get before the text starts to be just a single column of words?  :^)  Dismas|(talk) 03:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My take is that there is nobody left in this forum who objects, and the template has survived a deletion attempt, so it's use would be very tough to dispute at this point.  My advice would be if you add it and someone deletes it, refer them to the discussion during the deletion attempt (thanks Rossrs for providing the link) and this discussion.  Have fun... :) -Bansal 04:27, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Woot!  Dismas|(talk) 04:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is a great idea and should be what infoboxes are really for- quickly accessible info without having to think or search for something. Arniep 13:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Just leave it as an optional calculation, don't make the calculation automatic. I'm a new editor, and was editing Richard Biggs. It didn't register until after I submitted that birth date and Age did the calculation as of current day (of course it does), but he was not that old. In the case of someone who has passed away, we'll have to go back in and change the birth date to standard date linking, and change death date to use the Age calculation.... which brings another question... any way to treat the value listed in Birth Date as a variable, and perform the death date calculation based on that variable? In that case also, treat the existence of the death date as a "if exist", and if it does exist, then in birth date it can automatically perform the calculation. That way, when someone passes away, all thats needed is the entry of death date, and it automatically switches the age calculation off in the birth date entry, and on in the death date entry. Anyone follow my train of thought? Erpbridge 18:42, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birth date and age template 

message: Ingrid Bergman                                                                 	Ingrid Bergman                                                                             	
Ingrid Bergman in For Whom The Bell Tolls                                     	
Ingrid Bergman in For Whom The Bell Tolls                                                 	Birth nameIngrid Bergman
Born                                                                           	August 29, 1915 Stockholm, Sweden                                                          	
Died                                                                           	August 29, 1982, age London, England, United Kingdom                                       	
Career active                                                                  	1932-1982                                                                                  	
Spouse(s)                                                                      	Dr. Aron Petter Lindström (1937-1950)Roberto Rossellini (1950-1957)Lars Schmidt (1958-1975)	
Academy Awards                                                                 	Academy Awards                                                                             	
1944 Best Actress for Gaslight                                                 	1944 Best Actress for Gaslight                                                             	
1956 Best Actress for Anastasia                                                	1956 Best Actress for Anastasia                                                            	
1974 Best Supporting Actress for Murder on the Orient Express                  	1974 Best Supporting Actress for Murder on the Orient Express                              	
Emmy Awards                                                                    	Emmy Awards                                                                                	
1960 Outstanding Lead Actress in a Miniseries or Movie for Turn of the Screw   	1960 Outstanding Lead Actress in a Miniseries or Movie for Turn of the Screw               	
1982 Outstanding Lead Actress in a Miniseries or Movie for A Woman Called Golda	1982 Outstanding Lead Actress in a Miniseries or Movie for A Woman Called Golda            	
Tony Awards                                                                    	Tony Awards                                                                                	
1947 Best Performance by a Leading Actress in a Play for Joan of Lorraine      	1947 Best Performance by a Leading Actress in a Play for Joan of Lorraine                  	
I just added a emmyawards field to expand the template for TV actors. --Andromeda 21:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What about doing something similar to the Russian Wikipedia, where they seem to put all of the awards into one section? For example, the Russian article for Ingrid Bergman puts all of her Oscars, Golden Globes, and Emmy Awards in the награды field. --PhantomS 05:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Here is another example with Cate Blanchett. --PhantomS 05:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that's pretty much what I was imagining, although if we did this we should give the name of the production.  The Russian Wikipedia seems not to be doing this.  Flying off on a tangent... I'm intrigued by the "Карьера: 1932—1978" which I assume is something like a "years active".  I don't usually advocate adding more fields into this infobox, but that (IMO) is so much more relevant than how tall the person was.  At a glance we can see not only the timespan during which the person lived, but the timespan during which the person contributed to their chosen field. Rossrs 15:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think adding the names of the productions can make this field excessively large and may force the display of only a couple of the awards. What if the years linked to the individual film or play articles instead of the years in this case? Also, I agree the "Career" field would be a useful addition. --PhantomS 17:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It may make it too large, I agree.  It was just an idea, and maybe not a very good one.  I think it should be restricted to the major awards in whatever country, so the list would usually be small, but determining which awards to mention may open up a Pandora's Box of POV.  Linking the year to the film, may work but I don't think it's ideal.  This is a tricky question.  I honestly don't know. Rossrs 17:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I'll start a new section to ask for comments about the "career section" because it might get swallowed up and lost her, and if we're discussing two seperate points, it will just make this more confusing. Rossrs 01:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I think it's getting there, and hopefully with further discussion we'll get the most usable solution.  I think it would look more "standardized" if the award headers were aligned left as the other fields are.     BTW, I've removed the image before someone calls "copyvio" on it.  Rossrs 01:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What about the new awards section I put in the sample infobox here? Would something like this work? --PhantomS 00:16, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's very repetitive and that's the only problem.  I would have the award header and then have "Academy Awards" and then the film and then "Emmy Awards" (once only - just because she's won several doesn't mean it needs to be mentioned for each one. It just needs a subheader).  I think the Emmy Award should be named in full, because there is a distinction between different types of lead roles. What do you think? Rossrs 02:28, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed the 'and' from the dates for the Emmy awards, and it works. I think it's ready for use. The academy awards field will probably have to stay because it's been implemented for awhile, but the Emmy awards field is new and can probably be removed. --PhantomS 03:05, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, that wouldn't work. Helen Hunt has only one Academy Award and her Emmy Awards are all for the same series, but other actors have more. I think this way is better. --Andromeda 10:22, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it looks good, but I'm concerned that the box now shows 3 color bars, and the text is a bit bunched up.  Have a look at the Bette Davis article.  The infobox shows the awards in what I think is a very clear and concise manner.  What do you think? Rossrs 12:05, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Simply enough, many people will be using this template. You cannot trust everybody will do it that way. You have to account for variability. --Andromeda 14:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you're right but you can't trust that people will do it this way, that way or any other way.  We're already seeing people do all kinds of things and some of them look pretty bad.  Whatever we end up with, we should put an example on the template page like they have with the Template:Infobox musical artist and the Mariah Carey example.  Then, if someone wants to do it right, they'll know exactly what to do. Rossrs 15:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

text:  Problem that I'm seeing here is that we will end up adding about 10 or so separate awards fields if we don't create a single "Award(s)" field. By the way, I changed the sample to someone with more history and awards to play around with. --PhantomS 17:40, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

text:   Incidentally, I think awards should each have a different color bar. How do these colors in the sample work? --PhantomS 18:23, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Horrible. They clash. The template should be a visual unit. Colours should coordinate. --Andromeda 15:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Considering they are pastels and typically clash the least, there are few options left for about 10 awards. I'm still more of a fan of a single awards field, but I've changed the color scheme to a single consistent color in the sample. --PhantomS 18:52, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see on Robert De Niro the nominations are included as well as the awards- was this agreed upon? Isn't it going to get out of hand if we have Emmy award nominations as well? Arniep 18:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it wasn't agreed upon. I don't think it's been discussed in any detail but there was a discussion on one of the actor pages - can't remember which one - that came up with "wins only".  Rossrs 20:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

text: It definitely would be ungainly to have nominations and awards, especially if more award types are added. --PhantomS 20:41, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The top colour is beige, the awards colour is blue. I don't think that matches very well. --Andromeda 20:50, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The top color is LightGoldenrod, while the awards color is LightSteelBlue. They seem to match pretty well in my browser. Which colors do you suggest? --PhantomS 21:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

text:  As an aside, yellow and blue are often put together on flags. --PhantomS 21:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

text:  I don't think flags could be taken as design examples, since they're a very generic type of object. I'll suggest either changing to the top colour to a shade of blue or the blue colour to shade of golden yellow. --Andromeda 22:48, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Flags are designed to be appealing, and newer ones are typically designed by artists. However, in order to go along with the suggestion of changing everything to shades of one color, I have changed the sample to different shades of blue. --PhantomS 23:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not saying that they're not appealing. I'm just saying they're a very specific type of object, whose design cannot be easily exported elsewhere. And yes, I like this version better. --Andromeda 09:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it agreed that this is the final scheme? Also, what awards fields should be used from the available film awards and television awards? --PhantomS 20:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I like the colors very much.  I think they're a very good choice, but there is the potential for too many color bars.  Rossrs 10:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nooooooo. These two blues clash terribly! The boxes look much better with yellow at the top. I'm not sure why it is even necessary to have a separate color for the awards it just looks cluttered imo. Arniep 12:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

text:  IMO, the yellow at the top was kind of an eyesore before. As for the awards format of the sample, it seems to be the format that is most liked at the moment.--PhantomS 16:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry but really these blues don't look right at all. The yellow looks fine to me and at least it roughly matches the color of an academy award. It also tends to complement colours in photos well, whereas those blues are going to look even worse right next to an image, which is also why silver colour is good for deceased actors as we often have B & W photos of them. Arniep 17:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added an image to the sample to see the title bar color next to a color image. IMO, the blue looks fine next to it. --PhantomS 20:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know what it is but blue just doesn't seem right to me - it makes me think of the navy and things like that, not actors. Also with the links in blue too it's blue overload- with yellow it complements the blue (yellow is the complimentary color of blue). Arniep 22:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I had a yellow title bar and blue awards bars, but I was getting complaints about them clashing. If you have an idea for another design, please edit the sample at the top of this section. --PhantomS 06:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe it was the wrong type of blue- only a certain blue will be the complimentary color of a particular yellow etc. I'll have a go at combining a few colors-I think red might also go. Arniep 15:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Unless anyone objects, I will be adding the award format + colors seen in the example above to the infobox. --PhantomS 08:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added emmyawards field 

message: I have noticed that some actors and actresses have had their infobox bgcolour set to silver. Is this because they have died or because they were silver screen actors? --PhantomS 18:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it means they are dead. It may also mean some editors like silver. Or that some editors have copied and pasted the template from one article to the next without knowing that the colour may have significance.  Who knows?  It's yet another topic that needs to be discussed further. Rossrs 15:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Silver bgcolour