Template talk:Infobox Playboy Playmate

Birth date and age template
Lately the Birth date and age template has been added to most, if not all, Playmate infoboxes. Today, an editor went through taking this template out. I've reverted the removals. This template has been agreed on for use at Infobox actor (see discussion) which covers many more articles than the Playmate infobox. Since there seems to be at least one user who doesn't feel it belongs here, I'd like to hear other people's input. Thoughts? Dismas|(talk) 23:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I honestly see no problem with the day and age. Though one can easily determine the age by the birthdate, the age doesn't hurt the article in any way. Ohyeahmormons 19:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

This infobox is ugly
I know that this sounds rather harsh but in plain terms this infobox is ugly. There are serious issues with the spacing of it (for example, there are a number of fields which use three lines whilst the adjacent text only takes up one, making the spacing look poor) and it detracts rather than adds to the article (am talking about Tiffany Fallon in particular. I don't know how to do it myself, but the first thing that should be done to make this look better is to incorporate the name into the infobox (perhaps with a colour background) to make it look more together. Some colour would probably enhance it quite a bit. --  PageantUpdater  •  talk  |  contribs  |  esperanza  05:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Measurement units
I notice some template users use something like: 36" - 24" - 36" for body measurements, but WP:UNITS suggests that " not be used for inches. But I don't think we should use 36 in - 24 in - 36 in either. A more usual usage is 36-24-36 and usually understood in the context of body measurements. I was looking for guidance but could not find a reference anywhere. Schmiteye 04:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Birth date and age template
Is there any particular reason why the birth date and age template doesn't work if try to use it within this template?? Tabercil 19:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Within the template? Do you mean actually coded into it or used in the birth date's value field?  It works everywhere I've seen it, for instance, Tiffany Selby.  Dismas |(talk) 21:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm... you're right. I guess I musta made a typo when I tried keying it in and thought it was the Playmate infobox that was broken instead of me . Oh well. Tabercil 21:56, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

New fields
Why isn't there a caption field in this info box? Anyone? Dismas |(talk) 20:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Since nobody has replied, I'm gonna throw one in. Dismas |(talk) 21:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

In addition to needing an Image caption field as noted above, this template also needs an Image-size field. Valrith 13:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It was added, but I think it should have a default. Wikipedia's built-in images look too big in infoboxes in their original sizes. -Lwc4life 17:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I've added a Natural bust field. Keep in mind I've made it just optional. -Lwc4life 17:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Header color
Propose to change the default header color to DeepSkyBlue for living Playmates and silver for deceased Playmates. This would be an automatic based on the death filed. Very similar to the Template:Infobox actor. The code to change would be the following:

{| class="infobox vcard" style="width:; font-size:90%; text-align:left;" ! colspan="2" style="text-align:center; font-size:larger; background-color:; color:#000;" class="fn" |

This would make the infobox a little more in line with other infoboxes.

Also I believe that all fields should be optional and only display if a filed has been filled in. --Jeanenawhitney (talk) 21:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

New layout with documentation
I have cleaned up the template code. Added color to make it a more pleasing display. Centered the appearance and date lines. Made the default image size to 150px which seems to be better suited for infoboxes. I did change the image-name field to image which at my attempt broke the template. But AnonEMouse fixed it before I could (thanks). I have changed the month field to issue (but preserved month for backward compatibility) just for the fact that it is the issue of the magazine not the month. Fixed measurements display for bust hips waist. added color background for playmate of the year. removed the confusing pmoy abbreviation. Made all fields optional. The last reason was because I came upon a lot of boxes with question marks in them, which just made it darn right nasty looking. Last I added full documentation for the use of the template. --Jeanenawhitney (talk) 07:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Adding website parameter
I added a parameter for website and birthname. The parameter for birthname was in the doc's but not in the template. Softened the color displays. Placed division lines between sections. Changed the natural bust parameter to accept y, yes, n, or no. But display as Yes or No. Moved playmate of the year under playmate of the month issue. This allowed adding the website to the bottom of the box. Changed the born and died display to a better format. Fixed a bug that could cause measurements not to display properly. If a particular measurement is not used the other two (or single) will display properly. Changed the order of display for born parameters from place of birth, birth date to birth date, place of birth. Added a deathplace parameter. All parameters are optional. -- pete 19:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Preceding and succeeding change
I've made a change, and wasn't sure where to discuss. To avoid duplicating here, it's Thanks, Piano non troppo (talk) 21:17, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Natural bust
The natural bust field was added, without discussion, here. This field is not part of the more generic Template:Infobox adult biography. I don't see why it's necessary in this Playmate template. So, I'm proposing that it be removed. Comments? Dismas |(talk) 05:42, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll agree. Although has there been a lot of undocumented assertions by editors speculating due to the presence of the field in the playmate articles? It was rampant in the general porn star articles. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:07, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * And I've removed it pretty much on the grounds Morbid mentions. If it's relevant to the article on the person, then it should be sufficiently well sourced to go into the article. Tabercil (talk) 21:35, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Aligning
Is it possible to align the infobox to left of an article? If not, can that parameter be added? Aditya (talk • contribs) 17:38, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

RfC on Template:Infobox person
This message is to notify you that there is an RfC ongoing on whether to add pronunciation info to, which this infobox transcludes. Your comments on the matter are appreciated. Thanks! 0x0077BE ( talk ·  contrib ) 17:09, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Bust and waist
I've just noticed that women's bust and waist measurements are in BLPs because of this template. Those parameters were removed from Infobox model in March 2016 following this discussion. Can they please be removed from this one too? SarahSV (talk) 02:22, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Body measurements
Should the bust, waist, and hips parameters be retained or deprecated? (And how about height and weight?) gnu 57 14:18, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Opinions

 * Deprecate the bust-waist-hips ones, for sure. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. These body measurements can fluctuate quite a bit in the short term, never mind the larger-scale changes associated with pregnancy and aging. Cheers, gnu 57 14:18, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Deprecate - I can't think of a single piece of information less relevant to Wikipedia than the physical measurements of a woman at the time of a particular photoshoot. PraiseVivec (talk) 15:16, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Deprecate per PraiseVivec.--John Cline (talk) 19:33, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Deprecate - Indeed, there are additional dimensions to the NOTINDESCRIMINATE argument already advanced above--nevermind the transitory nature of these figures, what kind of possible value does this fixated scrutiny of women's bodies bring to an encyclopedic understanding of any encyclopedic topic? These fields are frankly juvenile and libidinous beyond the scope of any serious empirical interest: I can't fathom what the typical reader could possibly get out of this info.


 * Actually this whole discussion shines a light on the basic need for this infobox, period: I just opened the 'what links here' page for this template and did a random click on the articles this template it utilized in, and discovered that 12 of the 14 articles for playmates that I arrived at are clearly not sustainable articles in the first place, having virtually (or precisely) no independent reliable sourcing (and a couple have no references at all and must have been added early in project history before automatic checks would have caught these shortcomings). I don't think a single one of them could survive an AfD, observe these examples: Kelly Burke, Hedy Scott, Patti Reynolds, Karla Conway, Carol Eden, Sharon Johansen.  Again, these were chosen completely at random, and though I'm sure a handful of the few dozen articles that this infobox is utilized on will probably pass GNG, it would seem that most do not and I'm going to guess that they were added in a collective effort with the box itself at a time when WP:N/WWIN standards are not what they are today.


 * The only two articles I randomly clicked on that do pass GNG muster (Pamela Anderson and Jenny McCarthy) have this box transcluded into another infobox (or lower in the article) where it adds little to nothing of value to the reader, in terms of encyclopedic content. Of course, this is all a little outside the remit of the RfC as worded, but it does raise the question of whether this template just needs to go straight to TfD--though it may make sense to postpone such a move until after the situation is resolved with the clearly large number of playmate articles needing to be sent to AfD is resolved, after which any residual value for this template can be more clearly assessed.  But yes, with regard to the narrower question presented here, we should most certainly lose these parameters. SnowRise let's rap 05:24, 28 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Deprecate I was just about to come here and start this RfC, so glad to see it was already going! These clearly sexual details are hardly encyclopedic and certainly subject to change. SnowRise puts it so eloquently with frankly juvenile and libidinous beyond the scope of any serious empirical interest CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:22, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, and yes I think height and weight should also be removed. CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:25, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Deprecate per the comments above, it's irrelevant. Sea Ane (talk) 20:52, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Deprecate. This is not encyclopedic information, nor even defining characteristics within the sphere of pornographic modelling (these measurements do not appear in most publications of this sort, are not common knowledge, are not commonly sought information, and will not even be accurate except during a small window of time).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:24, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Deprecating
I am now setting up a tracking category (Category:Pages using infobox Playboy Playmate with deprecated parameters) to facilitate deprecation of these parameters. After it fills, I will run through it with AWB and then remove support for the parameters. Tol (talk &#124; contribs) @ 00:07, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why you're not removing the fields from the template (which will instantly stop the values from showing up in articles) already... I'd also boldly remove as done in Infobox model five years ago, given the unanimous support for removal of the other three above. Nardog (talk) 01:00, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * OOjs UI icon check-constructive.svg Done; with thanks to MB who finished the job for me. Tol  (talk &#124; contribs) @ 14:48, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * , why did you remove the tracking? It's common to have a maintenance category for unknown parameters - these could get added back in at any time on some article by and editor not aware they are permanently deprecated. Probably better for this be be generalized to catch any unknown parameter. There is a "Check for unknown parameters" that can be used. See the source for Infobox automobile for an example. MB 20:17, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Deprecated and unknown are not quite the same. Creating a tracking category for unknown parameters and using Module:Check for unknown parameters might indeed be a good idea, though we might as well merge it with Infobox model as suggested by Jc37 below. Nardog (talk) 21:13, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Remove weight
I think height "may" have value, and is generally not quite so variable in adults, so I'm not proposing removing that, but weight is rather variable like the measurements noted in the RfC above, and should probably be deprecated with the rest. I was going to Boldly remove the weight parameter, but thought I'd drop a note here first. If Tol would like to add it to what he is doing above, I would be totally fine with that. - jc37 01:06, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

lol I apparently edit conflicted with Nardog, who just suggested the same thing above. - jc37 01:08, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I support this. Although it was not explicitly discussed in the RfC, I can't see how the rationale presented in the RfC could not apply to weight as well. Nardog (talk) 01:09, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Alright, I'll do that too. I'll also disable the parameters now as suggested. Tol  (talk &#124; contribs) @ 01:23, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Merge to model
I realise that this infobox is on over 300 articles, but I wonder if maybe the better overall solution might be to merge/replace instances of this with Template:Infobox model. It looks like it has all the fields except issue/preceeded/succeeded and pmoy information.

For implementation, just remove all fields that infobox model already has from this template. And this template becomes an infobox add-in. (Which seems to be how it is already being used in some cases).

Just a thought. - jc37 04:32, 23 September 2021 (UTC)