Template talk:Infobox Biography/Archive2

How to use this template

Here is the current syntax for using this template:

Insert this starting as the first line of the article.
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.
If the subject is not yet deceased, define:
- date_of_death = | (blank)
- place_of_death = | (blank)

{{Infobox_Biography |
  subject_name   = Thomas Alva Edison |
  image          = [[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:

Don't use the template until the image is in place.
Use {{subst:Infobox Biography}} and then edit the resulting table manually.
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:

Discourages use of the template - which is more important than having PAGENAME'd images.
Defeats the point of having a template.
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|Halibu tt]] 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... [[User:Halibutt|Halibu tt]] 12:03, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)

Edit: fixed now, although I still don't know what was wrong with it... [[User:Halibutt|Halibu tt]]

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. [[User:Halibutt|Halibu tt]] 22:14, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)

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. [[User:Halibutt|Halibu tt]] 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. [[User:Halibutt|Halibu tt]] 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. [[User:Noisy|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? [[User:Noisy|Noisy | Talk]] 12:24, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Check your wikistress level. [[User:Halibutt|Halibu tt]] 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)