Template talk:Infobox Biography

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 HTML Rendering Issues 2 TfD 3 How to use this template 4 Discussion 5 Image title 6 Styling 7 Problem 8 Do we need it? 9 Revert 10 Where are we now? 11 Additions 12 Other versions 13 Death information 14 Can we just get rid of it? 15 Style poll 15.1 Version 1 15.2 Version 2 15.3 Comments 16 Split template - living vs. dead 17 Template width 18 Additions 19 Thoughts 20 Forking 21 Thoughts 22 Deformed Images 23 The same template for alive/dead/etc people 24 No useful purpose 25 Where to use 26 TfD debate 27 Another TFD debate, January 2006 28 Second TFD 29 Caption disappeared 30 Images 31 White Space 32 occupation vs job 33 Broken? 34 Remove | image_size = from code

[edit] HTML Rendering Issues

• First, this template fits my needs perfectly. Thanks for the good work!
• Second, and I'm sure this is not specific to this template, but others MUST have encountered this, the table tags that are conditionally added (the stuff in the #if statements) is being rendered awkwardly. Instead of:

<tr><td colspan="2" align="center">

I am instead getting:

<tr><td colspan="2" align="center">

Does anyone know how to prevent this from happening? Obviously the template is not rendering appropriately.

[edit] TfD

• 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)

[edit] How to use this template

Here is the current syntax for using this template:

1. Insert this starting as the first line of the article.
2. If no information is available, leave it blank (ex. "date_of_death= ").
   • Don't wiki-link the subject_name parameter.
   • Do wiki-link the others parameters as in the example below.
3. If the subject is not yet deceased, define:
   • date_of_death = | (blank)
   • place_of_death = | (blank)

Example from Thomas Edison:

{{Infobox_Biography |

subject_name = Thomas Alva Edison |

image_name = Thomas Edison.jpg |

image_caption = The Wizard of Menlo Park |

date_of_birth = [[February 11]], [[1847]] |

place_of_birth = [[Milan, Ohio|Milan]], [[Ohio]], [[USA]] |

date_of_death = [[October 18]], [[1931]] |

place_of_death = [[West Orange, New Jersey|West Orange]], [[New Jersey]], [[USA]]

}}

Blank for easy copying:

{{Infobox Biography
|subject_name=
|image_name=
|image_caption=
|quotation=
|date_of_birth=
|place_of_birth= 
|dead=
|date_of_death=
|place_of_death=
}}

[edit] Discussion

I don't see the point of inserting a quotation in the box, which should only give the user the most vital statistics (birth, death).[-- Lord Emsworth 16:35, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)]

Indeed; the infobox is surely meant to contain only the most vital statistics on the person -- if a specific quotation from them is one of the most significant things that they've done, the probably don't deserve such a full article...

James F. (talk) 18:01, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This Infobox was modelled off the most common of its type in paper books - Full legal name, a picture in a "classic" pose, a caption, a quote, and brith/death dates - and designed to look very nice on the printed page. The box as it is today is very modular though, being that if you don't know of any quotes, just leave it blank (quote= |). Someone can later come by and fill one in. The added benefit is that the reader can click the quote, and be taken to the Wikiquote page for that person. -- Netoholic @ 02:41, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This still poses a problem, because a blank cell appears. The point is not that one would have to find a quotation, but that any quotation would be inherently relatively unimportant. I would suggest omitting the quotation box altogether. -- Emsworth 14:24, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

As Emsworth said, the result is an ugly blank cell. My point is that most dictionaries of biography /don't/ have a quote about someone &emdash; at least, not here, they don't.

James F. (talk) 15:20, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

There are improvements being made to Mediawiki which would eventually allow better handling of this - specifically it could be written so that if no quote is defined, a blank cell would not appear. As to whether or not quotes at all belong there. I for one thinks it adds a lot of class to the article, and I also like linking Wikipedia and Wikiquote references in this way. I think we need some more opinions before implementing a change. Many other people have begun using this in their articles, and so far none of those editors has raised this as an issue, either here or on WikiProject Biography. -- Netoholic @ 15:46, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

We should definitely not have a quote box. A quote can give an article a point of view and can be a source of friction, it is best to leave them out completely. The misuse of selective quotes is why WikiQuote was created in the first place. Mintguy (T) 16:53, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

That seems a little cynical. My recommendation would be to always use the subject's most famous words, of about two lines long. If there is a dispute over what quote is to be used, it can temporarily be blanked during discussion. -- Netoholic @ 02:47, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

There have been many discussions about the use of selective quotes in various Wikipedia articles, it only leads to acrimony. I shudder to think which Adolf Hitler quote would be used. How about this from Ho Chi Minh as he declared Vietnamese independence: "All men are created equal. They are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness", or this one from Winston Churchill "I do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas. I am strongly in favor of using [it] against uncivilized tribes." - There was a great deal of trouble on Talk:Winston Churchill about the inclusion of this highly selective (and out of context) quote. It's best to simply avoid the issue altogether. On Wikiquote several quotes can be held that reflect both positively and negatively on an individual, giving some balance. For a Wikipedia article, to select one quote explicitly expresses a POV. Mintguy (T) 22:06, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

As with anything, I don't see the need for debate until this becomes a problem. So far, no edit wars have broken out over the quotes currently in use. Perhaps that's due to the current subjects using this template being generally good people. If there is a dispute, the quote should either reflect a positive tone, or be blank. The best would be a quote of the subject describing themselves or their own contributions. I see the quote area as being able to meet +90% of the articles out there, the rest can just blank it out. This argument is becoming circular, since the space allowing for a quote is optional. -- Netoholic @ 01:22, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Actually, it isn't, as an ugly empty cell appears when there is no quotation. -- Emsworth 14:11, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Recent changes to the template have made it so that a blank box is not visible when no quote is defined. Do people still feel the same way about this, because now it seems like a non-issue? -- Netoholic @ 17:05, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Image title

The requirement that the image file name is the same as the article title is not good. Suppose we have two good photos of Franklin Roosevelt, but there is disagreement over which one of them belongs at the top of his biography. In order to change the photo in the article, you have to upload a new image over the top of the old image. This means that other articles that used the old image are now broken. Surely some mistake? Gdr 16:35, 2004 Aug 31 (UTC)

No, quite intentional. The infobox is attempt to enforce good naming practices across multiple namespaces (Image, Wikiquote). If there is a fight over what photo should belong at Person Name.jpg, that can be handled by the normal consensus process. The same "fight" would occur with a manually defined image location. It also is a way to drive people to locate images for every biography subject. If we ever get to the stage of creating a WikiReader of biographies, this consistency will be very appreciated. -- Netoholic @ 02:42, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Quite intentional it may be, but wrong-headed. Say we find a better picture of someone - there is currently no way of renaming images, so the process of deleting both images and reuploading them with different names, and correcting the (possibly voluminous) references to them, would be quite... exhausting, and serve as a form of inertia, encouraging people to stay with images that aren't quite as good.

James F. (talk) 15:21, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I agree - renaming images is a pain, and why tie it down to .jpg? Some of the old portraits are greyscale and have transparent backgrounds. What happens when Joe Bloggs gets disambiguated to Joe Bloggs (painter)... more reuploading. This is a hugely inflexible system.

I put in place an image=Image:....jpg variable on each page using this template should we decide to change this system - but Netoholic saw fit to revert all this changes. ed g2s • talk 17:10, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Please do not make presumptious edits. If you intend to affect many articles, you should discuss it first. No one is right all the time. -- Netoholic @ 17:30, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It also discourages people from implementing the box on pages where the image is not called {{{PAGENAME}}}.jpg, i.e. almost all of them. ed g2s • talk 17:15, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

(copied from my (ed_g2s) user page:)

If a page doesn't have a {{{PAGENAME}}}.jpg, then none of the related images follows naming standards. This ensures that at least one picture is done correctly. Until then, it's no loss that the template doesn't work. They can use {{subst:Infobox Biography}}, and then edit the table manually on that one page. -- Netoholic @ 17:18, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

So something like (hypothetical situation) Image:Bill Clinton (White House portrait 1993).jpg is "incorrect"? What happens when something like Image:Bill Clinton (White House portrait 1997).jpg turns up and it is decided to use that photo instead - are we supposed to upload a copy of it to Bill Clinton.jpg. Then delete that and rename it when the page is renamed to William Clinton? Although it we be nice if we have {{{PAGENAME}}}.jpg everywhere - it just isn't practical. ed g2s • talk 17:45, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I wish the image management worked better, I really do, but right now we are limited. Yes, you can upload a picture to Bill Clinton.jpg and change the current one in the Infobox. This is up to each article's editors to decide. -- Netoholic @ 18:15, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

For reference, the Image use policy states clearly that "Drawings, icons, political maps, flags and other such images (basically those with large, simple, and continuous blocks of color) should be in PNG format. Photos and photo-like maps should be in JPEG format. Animations should be in animated GIF format."

This is a recommendation for general use of the respective file formats. When the image is a black and white etching - it often compresses better as a PNG, and it may not have a rectangular frame, so some transparency would again be suitable. ed g2s • talk 17:45, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC))

This is a policy document, debate the merits of your argument on it's talk page, but it is policy. PNG may compress better, but it is not for photos, only very simple images. -- Netoholic @ 18:15, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Ideally, the most notable people should have the primary article name, and should never have to move. So far, only very notable people have received the template. The automating image tagging (based on the PAGENAME, and specifying the exact size and placement) is meant to simplify and make consistent the use of this template. It also enforces image naming standards and policy, such that at least one photo of a notable person rest at the proper image filename.

I offer three solutions if this is disagreeable:

1. Don't use the template until the image is in place.
2. Use {{subst:Infobox Biography}} and then edit the resulting table manually.
3. Do some tests with another template and try it on some test articles.

In any case, please discuss major changes before implementing them -- Netoholic @ 17:36, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

In reply:

1. Discourages use of the template - which is more important than having PAGENAME'd images.
2. Defeats the point of having a template.
3. How would this new template solve the problem? Would it abandon PAGENAME?

ed g2s • talk 17:45, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yes, you can try creating a different template (starting perhaps on user sub-page) and design it how you think it should be done. Right now though, every single person who's added this current template to their articles of interest supports the way it works. I myself only added it to a dozen or so - all the rest have been done after the fact. I have to think that is good consensus. -- Netoholic @ 18:15, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I've changed it over to a more rational system of having an image and not a quote.

Enjoy.

James F. (talk) 18:07, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

James - "Enjoy." There is clearly not agreement with your unilateral actions. Especially since an on-going discussion is happening here. -- Netoholic @ 18:17, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

That's nice, dear.

Noisy's objections are currently (though I'm sure I'm about to proven wrong, but there you go...) about the styling. Yours are about the content. Your reversion just broke 30 pages. I didn't break the pages - I fixed them.

And please don't quote policy at me; I am quite aware of the policy which I would suggest that you just broke - I am meant to be one of it's guardians, after all...

James F. (talk) 18:23, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

By using your unauthorized bot to remove the quote= line, you broke a stable system and made it nearly impossible to recover! If you wanted to remove the quote from the template, you could have just done that. Instead you implemented a change which affected many articles without giving chance for discussion. -- Netoholic @ 19:37, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Styling

James - that new version of the infobox is horrible! I'm just going to read through the entries on this page to see how it's justified, but I just wanted to register my protest first! Noisy | Talk 18:13, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

A major change like this, that will affect every biographical article on Wikipedia, is something that should be tested in front of the community on places like Village Pump and elsewhere. As it is, it's obviously still 'in development' - it shouldn't be foisted upon the general public until you have a concensus for such a visible change as this. Please, please reconsider. Noisy | Talk 18:25, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit conflict]

Yes, indeed, this is of course a testing phase right now. However, the wonderful thing about my changes was that you could specify an image - so we won't need to have an image called "Village Pump.jpg" to demonstrate it on the Pump.

James F. (talk) 18:32, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This change currently applies to about 20 articles. Do you object to the replacement of the PAGENAME system and the removal of quotes or just the styling of the box. If it is the latter this is a matter beyond the scope of this page - it is about changes to the monobook.css (which you can personally customise if you really don't like it). ed g2s • talk 18:29, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

OK, I've read this talk page now, and I apologise to James. It seems that it is Ed g2s and Netoholic that are messing about with something that will affect Wikipedia in such a major fashion. Can I ask you to revert to a stable version before today's changes and raise this in the wider forum of Village Pump - using a single article as an example of what it is you are trying to achieve. There are many things I dislike about the new style ... and I think that other people may have objections as well. Noisy | Talk 18:52, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

All day long I've been trying to just get the template back where it was. ed_g2s and snowspinner made a decision to change every article inorder to promote there desires, using unauthorized bots to do it. This is outrageous. -- Netoholic @ 19:39, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Noisy, although I respect you objections to the styling (despite it being the in-house "toc" style), I disagree that I made any changes that made the template "unstable". I was merely implementing the improvements that had been discussed on this page, and I implemented them without breaking any of the pages. I also think you are over-estimating the scale of this issue, the infobox is still very young. Different style proposals can be discussed separately to this issue, and if approved, implemented very easily. I think any chance of sensible debate with Netoholic fell apart when he started listing us as vandals using unauthorised bots! This guy clearly had no idea what he was on about. ed g2s • talk 21:57, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Problem

I really wanted to add the infobox to all my bio articles, but its way too difficult. I followed all the guidelines, both the Andrzej Munk and Image:Andrzej Munk.jpg are there - yet the image is not visible. Any ideas?

Also, I realised that the image doesn't really have to be .jpg, .png is just as good (see: Eugeniusz Bodo). Halibutt 20:18, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)

The template is still in its infancy right now, and, amongst other things, the directions at the top of the page are no longer correct.

James F. (talk) 20:58, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

What are the correct guidelines now? I tried to add the template to Stefan Starzyński, but the pic seems to be missing - as usually... Halibutt 12:03, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)

Edit: fixed now, although I still don't know what was wrong with it... Halibutt

The instructions at the top of the page were wrong, listing image_caption twice. They should work fine now. ed g2s • talk 20:49, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

That explains a bit. Thanks a lot. Halibutt 22:14, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Do we need it?

I'm now of the opinion that we shouldn't use this infobox at all. I think it's just an ugly waste of space. The Charles Darwin page for example, look much better without any of the various versions of this template. See history of that page. Mintguy

I believe such a template is both needed and useful. I like all the infoboxes since they allow the readers to get the most useful pieces of information in a matter of seconds - which is what the internet was designed for. Also, they perfectly fit in this huge white gap right next to the table of contents. Łeaving the gap as it is is indeed a waste of space; filling it with a template seems like a good idea. Halibutt 10:19, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)

I think in general infoboxes are useful. In this case the infobox is a little empty, so to some, (especially those who don't like the table-of-contents-style), it may seem pointless. Perhaps some more information could be added to them? Nothing immediately comes to mind though... ed g2s • talk 17:03, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

MORE information? MORE? Goody, then we can actually retain the info boxes and elminate the article itself! Why deliberately encourage repetition of info on Wiki? Someone obviously wants pretty designs, but all they do is look like they are being encouraged to grow like Topsy and to get uglier and uglier. What the hell is wrong with Wiki having clean, concise clutter-free pages? Moriori 20:49, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)

For me the Biobox is nothing but an extended pic caption. AFAIC all is fine as long as it doesn't grow too big. If someone is a text-only grognard he can always edit his css file and brows the wiki in a text-only mode. However, I believe that an average user would appreciate the pics with captions. Halibutt 20:54, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)

Please leave the articles alone until you have worked out all the current problems with the template. Use a draft template - not the live one - until you have ironed out all the bugs. Please work on an individual article and mark it as in use {{inuse}} so that people don't get pissed off in the way that you're pissing me off. When you have finished - put the finished article up for a vote, and list it on Village Pump. That way you will work with the community - not against it. Noisy | Talk 23:04, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

What a lovely manner of ignoring the wiki-way.

James F. (talk) 23:46, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

With regards to extending the infobox - I agree with Halibutt - it is an extended image caption (I was merely throwing up the idea of extra fields incase something useful came out of it - infoboxes can be very useful) and as such should be styled like an image box. With regards to Noisy's suggestion, I agree with James, he has it completely wrong. He seems convinced that the infobox is broken - which it isn't, so removing it from the articles is completely counter-productive. I imagine his objections are more stlye based - than functionality based. ed g2s • talk 00:15, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well the template does seem to be rendering consistently now, and contains as much information as is necessary. However, it looks out of place when compared with every other article that uses tables to display summary information at the top of an article. It could, perhaps, be helped by some border lines to break up the information.

On Wikipedia I've been amused, amazed, astounded, and on a few occasions annoyed. This is the first time I've been angry (though it probably won't be the last). I normally walk away to cool down before that point. I'm a staunch believer in be bold, and I've failed to use Show Preview sometimes, but if your version of the Wiki-way makes someone angry, then perhaps you should question it? Noisy | Talk 12:24, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Check your wikistress level. Halibutt 12:56, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)

You seem to flit between two different arguments (that you just "don't like" the box, without offering any constructive criticism, and that, because others' actions make you "angry", it is self-evident that they were in the wrong), and I'm not quite sure what you want to happen.

That it looks "out of place" I would debate; it fits in with the standard skin, including the auto-generated page furniture (categories, framed or thumbed images, tables of content, &c.), which is as a result of using the standard formatting. That few other infoboxes have yet been converted to the standard does not mean that it isn't the standard (this is getting quite philosophical ;-)), although examples include the US state infoboxes (such as on Texas), Oxbridge college infoboxes (as shewn on Trinity College, Cambridge, with a blue sheene), and others.

Do you dislike the standard formatting so intensley, really?

James F. (talk) 01:13, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

JamesF > My problem with your actions is the unilateral deletion of the "quote= " lines from the articles. I am sure you fully knew that action would negate discussion over the validity of that line. The discussion was still open, there was no consensus to remove it completely from the template, and there was a workaround in case specific articles did not need/have/require a quote (by setting quote= blank). I find that extremely distructive, since in many cases, editors found it interesting to research an appropriate quote. Your action to remove them was easy, but replacing them, should the consensus agree it is a nice option, is very hard work. I think it shows disrespect that you would presume you were so right, that you would go through and remove all those while the discussion was on-going.

As to whether we "need" the infobox, I'll respond by saying "Yes". Template:Infobox_Biography use (beyond the first dozen articles I put it in) has been growing steadily. Editors like the format and concise information, apparently. I think it is a "good thing", but would never at this point presume to try and add it to every article.

As to the formatting, I am very open to many different styles for the box. I think that, beyond the heading and birth/death info, the image (& caption) and a quote can apply to a large majority of articles. There is not too much else that can apply across every [Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography|Biography]], so leaving that option in seems quite reasonable. Let the fight over what quote (if any) is appropriate is better left to the individual article authors. -- Netoholic @ 01:50, 2004 Sep 13 (UTC)

*sighs*

I, Ed, Emsworth and Mintguy all said that having a quote was not a good idea. This was over 2 weeks ago. My actions were in line with the consensus on the talk page (err, that would be here); it was your reversions of others' attempts to make a bad situation better that were "unilateral". Discussion was not "on going"; the last substantive comment was on the 4th, a week before my actions. As for finding the quotes, I didn't delete the articles; they are still in the article's histories (and, indeed, would be part of the penultimate version were it not for the edit wars), and very much easily achievable in the laughably unlikely circumstance that your opinion that a single comment made by someone is a balanced, fair summary of their life and its work proves to be the majority opinion (though, of course, if it did turn out to be the case, one would accept it with grace). Your purported "work around" is nothing of the kind; it still leaves the root problem which is that having a specific quote so greatly highlighted is highly POV, something that you have yet failed to discuss at all. Whether it is "interesting" for the editors to do the research is irrelevent - if you want to do that sort of research, well, that's what Wikiquote is for, after all.

I do, however, think that your creation of this template was a very good idea, and I fully support its use.

James F. (talk) 03:17, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Your contention that the "single" quote is a POV issue doesn't follow - no article has had any POV dispute related to the quote in this infobox since it's inception. In any case, when writing a biography, using the quotation most commonly associated with the individual, so long as it sets a somewhat positive tone, is best - the same guideline for choosing which quotations belong in the article in the ==Quotations== section. Honestly, until this becomes an issue, I don't see the argument for your position. -- Netoholic @ 03:32, 2004 Sep 13 (UTC)

On this point, Netoholic, you are simply wrong, see [1] where a quote assigned to Lord Kelvin was considered POV and removed. "As long as it sets a somewhat positive tone" - this is going to be POV. Should we choose a nice quote for say, Adolf Hitler to make sure he is portrayed in a good light? ed g2s • talk 13:36, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The Lord Kelvin quote wasn't a POV complaint... I think that it was just a matter of it being a really bad quote. There was no dispute though, and blanking it for lack of something better was amicable. As to your other point, and everyone always brings up Hitler, the quote should be his most famous one or one that shows insight into his essence. What people around here misunderstand is that the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy does not apply to sections of an article - it applies to the article as a whole. Even on the Hitler article, it is possible to find a compelling quote. If you're willing, I'll perform that experiment. -- Netoholic @ 14:19, 2004 Sep 13 (UTC)

This issue was discussed ealier in this talk page - and every was in favour of removing the quote line for all the problems is has and/or will cause with POV. Selecting one quote for such prominence on a page is always going to give POV to the article as a whole, even though it just a section. You seem to be the only person who objects to these modification to "your" template (you called it "a concept I created and nursed"). This is a rather unhealthy attitude to take towards a page. ed g2s • talk 20:43, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Theonly unhealthy attitude I see is to continue instigating someone even after they've objected. In particular, when one editor has put a lot of work into something, mutual respect should kick in and any reasonable person might try to discuss major changes first. This is not about ownership, but I may be drawing on experience and insight that you may not. In both here and IRC, I've been amicable to trying to find some way of gaining consensus about this. You and JamesF took it upon yourselves to "fight it out" rather than discuss the dispute -- and I mean the dispute itself, not the specific elements of this template. Because you haven't done this, you are both seen as oppressive, and make me (a non-admin) feel that my contributions weigh a lot less than yours. -- Netoholic @ 22:50, 2004 Sep 13 (UTC)

The difference between our versions are the two main points: quotes and {{{PAGENAME}}}.jpg. I have still seen no support for you version on this or any other page. On seeing this is the talk page, I decided to implement the changes requested by several people. The dispute had already been active for several weeks. The fact that you created this page doesn't matter - nor does that fact that I am a Sysop, the thing that matters is that every comment was in favour of making these changes. On a separate matter - I consider your accusations, that I used a bot to make changes, a personal attack - and as such unacceptable. ed g2s • talk 23:10, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Amazing how we can talk in circles,eh? Don't worry, I know you're sorry. Just be more considerate next time. -- Netoholic @ 00:00, 2004 Sep 14 (UTC)

My 66 kopeks. We don't need the infobox, it's fatware, a symptom of feature-itis. It's distracting, like bells and whistles are. Short articles are already short and don't need the infobox, long articles should be written with a brief overview at the beginning with the main body divided by header titles, four of which result in a table of contents, which should be under the overview paragraph. The overview paragraph gives all the data an infobox would give. And a paragraph is easy to format and bugfree. Cheers, Vincent 04:58, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Another few kopeks, working towards a full rouble. The infobox is actually useful for people famous for holding offices (e.g. US presidents, UK Prime Ministers) since it standardizes information relating to the office and their holders. I'd even expand the use to historical kings and queens for the same reason. But I think it is of dubious value for a general bio (e.g. Charles Darwin) and the infobox should not be used indiscriminately. Vincent 03:13, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think Vincent is right that infoboxes are much more useful for officeholders. I also think a quote is a bad idea. john k 04:33, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I like infoboxes. For example, a large amount of information for the element Oxygen is provided neatly and compactly. I don't really like the id=toc scheme, and I can't avoid it through choice of skin, so it looks as though I will have to embrace it, as James says. It will probably spread through other usages.

But really, what do infoboxes bring to the party for biographical articles? What more is there to say than time and place of birth and death? And, in general, these are already provided in the first paragraph or two. The current version of the template infobox provides that ... but is never going to be expanded with any factual (i.e. not open to disputation, as quotes are) information that is common to every biography where such an infobox may be used. OK, they fill up the space beside the toc, but a picture does that just as well. For biographies, they just seem redundant. (Copy on Darwin talk page.) Noisy | Talk 10:33, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

More reconsidered kopeks. I think this vote (on infobox usage in Charles Darwin) will matter, as an early test of infoboxes used outside their already established usage (Presidents, elements, etc.) where they add value because they standardize presentation and ease understanding the bigger picture (all the presidents, the entire periodic table). I think in a bio article an infobox isn't so useful because 1) choosing on a restricted list of a topics is POV (e.g. quotes) and 2) adding topics eventually makes the biobox hard to manage. (comments copied from Charles Darwin talk) Vincent 01:16, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I agree that an "infobox," as the colloquial expression has it, is unnecessary in most cases, and is merely redundant with the lead section, and, furthermore, is distracting. Chemical elements (and other chemicals falling into categories such as acids, bases, etc.), Government Leaders, and the like are acceptable. In other words, I express my concurrence with the User Vincent. -- Emsworth 14:56, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I agree, the biography infobox is really unnecessary. I came across this because I found the one on Mark Twain. It takes up a lot of room and just repeats what's in the introductory part of the article. Using a plain picture and its caption gives more flexibility, is a lot more compact and is simpler.P. Riis 04:10, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Revert

Netoholic's edit of 9/23 broke the pictures in articles such as Galileo Galilei. I reverted it. Shimmin 16:00, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)

I fixed every article when I changed the template, except Galileo Galilei, which was, until recently, protected. I am reverting. -- Netoholic @ 18:39, 2004 Sep 26 (UTC)

[edit] Where are we now?

Some time ago I took part in the discussion and even decided not to put more Bioboxes on the pages I created when User:Gzornenplatz started erasing them. Back then there was no voting and the discussion on whether we need it or not was pretty much inconclusive. However, did anything change since then? What is the current state of discussion and will anyone except Gzornenplatz revert my edits when I add Bioboxes? Halibutt 21:56, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)

Also, if the matter is still undecided - how about a voting? Halibutt 21:58, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)

There's a vote at Talk:Charles Darwin. Gzornenplatz 23:37, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)

At best, that vote only applies to the Darwin article. This same format you've been removing has been part of many featured articles, so I'd say those are strong proof of the value of it. -- Netoholic @ 05:33, 2004 Oct 31 (UTC)

Are we ready to start a voting here or are there still some things that should be discussed? Halibutt 09:56, Oct 31, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Additions

Thoughts on adding the following:

• Spouse (most known/longest/last/whatever criteria)
• Nickname
• Primary job/role: not sure how best to word this, but what are they best known for? actor, president, singer, writer, philosopher, etc.
• Height: with date if known. Though some people get shorter in their later-years, most people tend to have the same height for most of their life, which would go here.
• Number of children

Cburnett 03:18, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

These aren't universal qualities, so probably going to be hard to see them get in (well, I guess height is, but really irrelevant). The "image_caption" parameter could be used to provide flexibility and fill in some of that information, if it's relevant for the subject. -- Netoholic @ 04:10, 2005 Jan 14 (UTC)

[edit] Other versions

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)

Done at Template:Szlachciura. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 01:44, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Death information

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)

Is there a way to fix this? That "Died" tag just hangs there, looking awfully stupid and misleading. Clapaucius[[User talk:Clapaucius|<font size="+0" face="Courier, monospace">*</font>]] 22:20, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

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)

[edit] Can we just get rid of it?

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)

There's a potential to screw up articles en masse with any popularly-used template. --Jacj 17:49, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that's true. That's why I think they should only be used when they're actually adding useful information, especially when they bring together information from different sources. Here all they're doing is taking up space and repeating the most obvious information from a few inches over. Readers do not gain anything by having this box here. In return for the added complexity and the added potential to disrupt articles, we're getting exactly nothing. If you just put the subject's portrait in a frame,you have complete flexibility as far as what you want to put in the caption. PRiis 15:15, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Style poll

Started by Cantus…☎ 06:58, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Which version do you prefer:

[edit] Version 1

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)

[edit] Version 2

1. Cantus…☎ 07:00, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

• 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)
  • Such changes aren't possible by just modifying your .css. —Cantus…☎ 10:23, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Split template - living vs. dead

I'd like to fork this template by adding a new one for articles about people who are still alive. I would remove the unnecessary "death" items, and add a "currently resides" line. We can maintain the same look fairly easily, since it is only two templates. Objections? -- Netoholic @ 07:08, 2005 May 17 (UTC)

[edit] Template width

According to Wikipedia:Infobox templates:

Standard suggested width of 300 pixels.

Emphasis is mine. I believe this box is way to wide for the purpose, and I will revert tomorrow. —Cantus…☎ 06:39, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Additions

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)

• I do think that expansion of the template would be nice. I see a couple fields that would be nice to add: mother, father, spouse(s), child(ren)...any others? It would be much easier to do this all at once than to do it piecemeal. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:19, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thoughts

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)

[edit] Forking

Is there any news on the forking? I suggest that the fork should be Infobox Biography(Alive) and Infobox Biography.--Bjornar 00:07, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There is an existing Template:Infobox Person which is a little-used form of this. Would it be confusing to use "Biography" for dead people and "Person" for living ones? I could implement, since it sounds like there are no objections to the idea. -- Netoholic @ 06:24, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)

[edit] Thoughts

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.

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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)

[edit] Deformed Images

I just noticed that this template deforms images: see Josip Broz Tito or Buddy Holly. Screenshots here: http://img291.imageshack.us/img291/5864/buddyholly0ji.png and http://img93.imageshack.us/img93/1734/tito4bh.png. Is this due to my browser (Mozilla Firefox on Linux)? However, even if this interests just a part of users, it should be fixed. GhePeU 3 July 2005 12:56 (UTC)

• I'm on IE, and it does the same. For a more pronounced example, see Laurent Clerc. -- Norvy (talk) 3 July 2005 17:47 (UTC)

The developers have resolved the issue. See Bugzilla:2616. However, now we've got portraits that look absolutely huge on small screens. Can we reduce the size of the image to, say, 220px instead of 280px? slambo July 4, 2005 16:04 (UTC)

[edit] The same template for alive/dead/etc people

There seems to have been a lot of discussion here (and elsewhere) in the past about the differences required in a template depending on the persons status (alive, dead, famous, political, etc). Specific to this page I propose a small change to the biography infobox. You can check out a similar change I did to Template:Infobox UNSecGen, where the persons page has a spot to put a date of death, but if he/she is still alive the spot is left empty the Infobox alters itself to fit the profile. (See Kofi Annan (alive) and Dag Hammarskjöld (dead) for examples.Trevor macinnis 18:56, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Use of templates within templates should be actively avoided (see Wikipedia:Avoid using meta-templates). All of that Template:If defined call2 crap is, um, "clever" but easily avoided by creating two templates - one for living and one for dead. Making sure both templates look similar is simple. -- Netoholic @ 19:05, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I strongly object to having a "died" slot in the infobox for people who are not even in their 30s yet. If need be we should have two infoboxes, one for the living and one for the dead. -Willmcw 23:50, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

I concur with Willmcw. This is inline with the Wikipedia policy of listing the birthdates of living people as (born September 9, 1960) as opposed to the more morbid (September 9, 1960 - ?). Having the died pop up and left blank implies that no one knows when they died, but they are, in fact, dead. — Frecklefoot | Talk 13:52, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

The use of 'If defined' is well precedented on subject area biographical infoboxes for exactly this purpose. If you look at the edit history of the template you can see that in spite of many edits it has effectively not changed at all in the last year, nor changed other than some visual tweaks since netoholic first created it. It seems obvious to me that netoholic is holding back the maturation of his child here. So I'm going to make the bold suggestion that Netoholic take a wikibreak from anything related to this template so other editors have a chance to enhance it. --Gmaxwell 15:37, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] No useful purpose

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)

I agree. In fact i would favor delting this template. DES ^(talk) 16:24, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

• 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 [2]; also see the negative comment it has obtained at Talk: John Vanbrugh. Let it go. Giano | talk 18:27, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

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)

Yes there is. It is at WP:TFD. Follow the instructions there to nominate any template. note that the template {{tfd}} 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)

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)

- Why is this so small?

[edit] Where to use

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)

I'll second that Giano | talk 09:43, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

A reasonable compromse, and the template should remain "as-is" in terms of content.--Lordkinbote 18:35, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

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)

[edit] TfD debate

This template survived a debate at TfD. The discussion can be found here. -Splash^talk 16:22, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

How dreadfully unfortunate. -Silence 04:33, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

This has got to be the single ugliest thing ever created on Wikpedia. I obviously have been working on pages that have been spaced this carbunkle and have only seen as few of them hit by it now. Is is too large. It has the colour of a corpse. It deforms the page with its size and look. Please bin this pile of crap. It is mindboggling that something as normally as well designed as Wikipedia could have something so ugly on its pages. FearÉIREANN\^{(caint) 17:20, 4 November 2005 (UTC)}

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)

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)

[edit] Another TFD debate, January 2006

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)

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)

[edit] Second TFD

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

• This template was listed on templates for deletion. The result of the discussion was keep. The full discussion may be found here. _→AzaToth 21:40, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Caption disappeared

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)

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)

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)

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)

Can someone take a look at John Lesesne DeWitt and help figure out what is wrong with the infobox there? I can't figure it out. Thanks, BanyanTree 12:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Done. When specifying the image, only put the filename, without the [[Image: and ]] parts. Slambo (Speak) 12:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! - BanyanTree 18:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Images

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)

Specify a value for the image_size parameter. Slambo (Speak) 10:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] White Space

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? 75pickup (talk • contribs) 18:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] occupation vs job

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)

"Occupation" is too big a word, it pushes everything to the side. 23:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC) 75pickup (talk • contribs)

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)

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. 75pickup (talk • contribs) 23:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

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)

"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)

[edit] Broken?

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

Born {{{birth_date}}} {{{birth_place}}}

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)

It looks like the template changed quietly? I added a combination like birth_date=15 April 1959 | place_of_birth=TRUE | birth_place=Paddington, London, England to fix the Emma Thompson infobox. Not knowing how heavy users of the template want it to be, I don't want to change the template without knowing what's preferable. —C.Fred (talk) 00:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Messed up on Kenneth More, too. I reverted the last change, to no effect. TheMadBaron 00:47, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Looks ok now (on Safari). Temporary database glitch? ....dave souza, talk 06:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Looks good for me now too. --Jamoche 07:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Remove | image_size = from code

The blank now appears as:

{{Infobox Biography
| subject_name   = 
| image_name     = 
| image_size     = 
| image_caption  = 
| date_of_birth  = 
| place_of_birth = 
| date_of_death  = 
| place_of_death = 
| occupation     = 
| spouse         = 
}}

Without "| image_size =", the remainder of the code produces a nice image. With "| image_size =," the image produced is huge. Moreover, whether "| image_size =1" or "| image_size =100" is used, the same huge image appears. The line "| image_size =" should be removed from the code and provided as an option to the code. Thoughts? -- Jreferee 16:10, 21 October 2006 (UTC)