Template talk:Infobox Biography/Archive2

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_caption  = [[Image:Thomas Edison.jpg|none|280px]] |
  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]]
}}

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)

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=File:....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)

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! [[User:Noisy|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. [[User:Noisy|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. [[User:Noisy|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)

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). [[User:Halibutt|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)