Template talk:Infobox Biography/Archive1

message: *Why is this so small?
**It is small because it is mot often placed on the trmpalte itself, so that it also appars on all articles where the template is used. DES (talk) 22:38, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: TfD

message: Are there any variants of this - for statesmen, monarchs, military leaders, etc.? I was thinking of making a template in place of current bioboxes in szlachta (Polish nobleman) articles (:Template:Szlachta). I was thinking expanding this template with the following sections: Noble Family, Coat of Arms, Offices (that's one important thing that is missing from our current hand mande boxes), Parents, Consorts, Children, Place and Date of Birth, Place and Date of Death. What do you think? See list of szlachta for range of people I'd like to apply this modified template to. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 12:05, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Done at :Template:Szlachciura. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 01:44, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other versions 

message: I want to add a new feature to this template, currently used by many similar templates, like :Template:Infobox Pope, :Template:Infobox President, which is that death information is not shown for people who is alive. It is very simple. All you have to do is add to all articles using this template dead=dead or dead=alive. You can help by going to Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Infobox Biography and start editing the articles. After all articles have been updated, the Template will be updated. —Cantus…☎ 03:43, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
:Not a bad idea, but it would help to use the edit summary in explaining exactly what you're doing, so these changes won't be reverted by well-meaning contributors. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Work 04:19, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
:Done and done. All articles updated (with summary info), and template updated :) —Cantus…☎ 05:02, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
This action is a terrible idea and given that Cantus didn't give any time for comments to be made before implementing it and changing dozens of articles makes it even worse.  If the "excess" date_of_death field was a problem, which has not been established even, better solutions are available.  Dammit Cantus, I wish you wouldn't pull this - it puts us all in a bad position and creates a shit-ton of extra work for everyone, including yourself. -- Netoholic @ 16:41, 2005 May 9 (UTC)
:Why is it a terrible idea, and what are the better solutions?  I'm curious for my own knowledge building. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Work 19:26, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
:It's rather disgusting to see an empty "Died" slot waiting to be filled (and of course misleading).  It does indeed need to be hidden if the person has not died; I will move any articles I see away from this template otherwise. ¦ Reisio 11:17, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there a way to fix this? That "Died" tag just hangs there, looking awfully stupid and misleading. Clapaucius* 22:20, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have made the "Died" tag invisible if no date of death is set, just like the Infobox_Band or Infobox_Celebrity templates do. I couldn't see e.g. the page of Hank Jones with a "Died" tag.--Peter@hlw.co.at 23:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Death information

message: It serves no purpose, it causes lots of problems and it adds unnecessary complexity. As we've just seen, the potential to screw up articles en masse is quite real. PRiis 20:18, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a potential to screw up articles en masse with any popularly-used template. --Jacj 17:49, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can we just get rid of it? 

message: Started by Cantus…☎ 06:58, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
Which version do you prefer:
===Version 1===
#I prefer the older version. The new one looks bad in Firefox 1.0.4 on Windows. --Jacj 17:45, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Style poll

message: #I prefer the older version. The new one looks bad in Firefox 1.0.4 on Windows. --Jacj 17:45, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Version 1

message: * This poll is ass. I object to the concept of it.  Cantus should be ashamed that of all the possible subjects, he chose Hitler to make is point here. -- Netoholic @ 07:25, 2005 May 14 (UTC)
* Waste of time. Polls are only to be used in exceptional circumstances. Change the .toccolours class in your monobook if you really don't like it. ed g2s • talk 10:18, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments 

message: I think this should be expanded - parents, children, functions (president/minister/chancellor/etc.) and a quote. What do you think? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 12:31, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additions 

message: I like Netoholic's idea of having a "Current residence" (or similar) for individuals still living. Piotrus also has a good idea, but perhaps as options? Spouse (if famous, or has a wikipedia biography), children (same), career highlights...that sort of thing. I'd also really appreciate it if people would leave pages ALONE that have the Infobox_Biography in place on pages where it's NOT hurting ANYTHING to have them there. The template has not been deprecated, it's not been on any sort of VfD page.... I think it's quite usable. What's up with this "REMOVE ALL TEMPLATES" war going on right now anyway? --JohnDBuell | Talk 14:07, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thoughts 

message: I just ran across this template at Buddy Holly, which I think it compliments brilliantly! Upon reading the talk page, I realize there's a lot of debate on this template, and that I'm coming in in the middle, but here goes.
# I do NOT support adding any more info to this template: not everyone is married or has children, and dead people don't have a current residence. As it stands, everyone is born somewhere, sometime, and will/has die(d) somewhere sometime. The current/old method of displaying this info in wikipedia is in brackets beside the person's name at the top of the article. Not only is the old method cumbersome, the new one is clean, efficient, and quick. The current style is clean and doesn't overburden the article with a massive long table full of half-complete info. Most of the info regarding spouses, children, residences, occupation, etc are better conveyed in the body of the article anyways IMO.
# I don't think this template should be forked for alive people. The blank space is pretty obvious, and maybe we could start putting in some words or something to say that they're alive. OTOH, I don't feel very strongly about this.
# Upon looking at the Charles Darwin article, it strikes me that this template isn't really suitable for everyone, and maybe we shouldn't try to make it so. It's currently great for illustrating celebrities that have a nickname (legal name on top, nickname in the caption, e.g. Dave Brubeck). I say keep this template simple, clean, and just live with the fact that it won't be perfect everywhere.
Anyways, those are my $0.03. -Lommer | talk 23:09, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thoughts 

message: :This infobox serves no useful purpose. Very many people don't like them and keep having to remove them from articles. We don't need it. Jooler 06:52, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. In fact i would favor delting this template.  DES (talk) 16:24, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *I couldn't agree more.  I do not think this template enhances at all, it merely repeats information easily obtained from the text. It is ugly, it is overpowering, it is unnecessary. It in no way improves the article. It spoils any page it is on aesthetically. If it stays, we may as well all give up and make each page just a list of dates and facts adorned by a few tables.   Just look at the edit waring the horrible thing is causing here ; also see the negative comment it has obtained at Talk: John Vanbrugh.  Let it go. Giano | talk 18:27, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This appears to be about the 4th or 5th time the issue of getting rid of this template has arisen on this page. Is there a vote for deletion page for templates? Jooler 22:03, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes there is. It is at WP:TFD. Follow the instructions there  to nominate any template. note that the template  is usually put on the template itself, or when that would disrupt too many pages, on the template's talk page. DES (talk) 22:06, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Oh, how stinking delightful!  For those who can't read, they can have a box telling them the same thing.  Good Lord, we don't need Wikipedia looking any more like People Magazine!  This moronic, obvious, wasteful thing should go.  Geogre 23:34, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: No useful purpose

message: I think it's very clear that there is no consensus for this to be used on all biography articles.  Can I ask that those who like this template please refrain from adding it to pages where the consensus is strongly against its inclusion, such as John Vanbrugh and Lord Dufferin?  Leave it as something that people who write the biographical articles can use if they wish. Worldtraveller 09:08, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll second that Giano | talk 09:43, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: A reasonable compromse, and the template should remain "as-is" in terms of content.--Lordkinbote 18:35, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's clear from the history of the template that unless netoholic decides to reduce his involvement that the template will not be changing at all. I regard that as a pretty negative thing... if you're concered about the template changing out from under you on a particular article you could always fork the template or just includ it directly, it's a very very simple table and there would be nothing wrong with just directly including it in an article. --Gmaxwell 02:05, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where to use 

message: This template survived a debate at TfD. The discussion can be found here. -Splashtalk 16:22, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: How dreadfully unfortunate. -Silence 04:33, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure the "its color sucks" argument will carry much weight, considering that its the same color as the background of the default Wikipedia skin. I'll agree with you that it's one of the worst commonly-used templates on Wikipedia, though; not the worst (remember Template:Infobox_Philosopher), but very likely in the top 5. -Silence 21:46, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm the creator of Template:Infobox_Philosopher - I just want to know how it can be improved.  Is it too big, etc?  Any criticism is helpful.  FranksValli 23:02, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  TfD debate 

message: This template has been nominated for deletion again.  It was added to the TFD page on January 7, but it looks like the nominator didn't make due notice here (probably saw the tfd template used here on the talk page, so it absolutely needs to be removed from here when the debate is over). Slambo (Speak) 02:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, I did make notice here. I put the tag up at the top of the talk page, per the instructions on the Templates for deletion page. DreamGuy 07:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another TFD debate, January 2006 

message: I have transcluded it this time. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second TFD 

message: I notice that CORNELIUSSEON has removed the image_caption without giving any reason.
Rather than simply revert it, I'd like to know why this was done and whether the change should stand.
HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 14:04, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree on putting the caption parameter back as it's often used to give details about the image.  Further, the image alt-text should be put back so users who access the site through screen reading software know what the image portrays.  Slambo (Speak) 14:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's what the "image_caption" parameter is for. If you use alt text for the image and a caption, people on screen readers and using lynx just get the same text repeated twice. -- Netoholic @ 17:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I should have checked the talk before.  I reverted CORNELIUSSEON's edits as the image parameters were also removed, and asked about it on his talk.  I noticed this after the image at Rosa Parks took up almost the full width of the screen. - BanyanTree 17:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Done.  When specifying the image, only put the filename, without the Image: and  parts. Slambo (Speak) 12:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! - BanyanTree 18:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Caption disappeared 

message: Can anyone tell me how I can stop the template from increasing the size of the image? SlimVirgin (talk) 03:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Specify a value for the image_size parameter. Slambo (Speak) 10:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Images

message: Every time the infobox is put on a page, it leaves a inch thick space in between the title and the beginning of the text. I'd like to know why it's there and how to fix it. This all seems to have started when someone added a section on occupation and spouses. It also pushes the born and died captions further to the side. I know that happens on all infoboxes, but is there any way to get rid of it?  18:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: White Space

message: why the change of the "occupation" parameter to "job"?   some pages already use occupation, now they are broken.
Justforasecond 23:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Occupation and job are not the same. Bertie Ahern's occupation, as is George Bush's and Tony Blair's, is Politician. Their job is being Irish Taoiseach, President of the United States and British Prime Minister respectively. FearÉIREANN (caint) 23:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I looked in a thesaurus, A synonym for occupation is "trade", it's the right size and means the same thing, so I'm changing it to that.  23:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is better. Unfortunately though I don't think most people will recognise it. While technically trade covers all occupations, in reality it is used by many people in a way that just covers most blue collar posts. Maybe career might be more easily understood by users. FearÉIREANN (caint) 01:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "trade" doesn't work -- that is typically encompasses only some sorts of work (it is a synonym for "craft").   for instance, being a preacher is not really a trade.  and either way, you can change the *display* of the template without changing the *parameter* name, breaking pages in the process.   Justforasecond 01:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: occupation vs job

message: On both Safari and Firefox (Mac OSX), the infobox date looks like this:
Born	

I've no idea how to fix this - is this something wrong with the template, the browsers, or the way it's used?--Jamoche 01:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Messed up on Kenneth More, too. I reverted the last change, to no effect. TheMadBaron 00:47, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks ok now (on Safari). Temporary database glitch? ....dave souza, talk 06:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good for me now too. --Jamoche 07:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

text:  All good. Very strange. TheMadBaron 13:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Broken?

message: :Image:....jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 05:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:....jpg