Template talk:Infobox actor/Archive 5

Background colour
The bgcolour line in this infobox seems to do nothing. Or I don't know how to use it. Can this be fixed? Patche99z (talk) 14:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, the "bgcolour" section is useless. Any living actors' infobox is automatically yellow, and any dead ones' is automatically silver. That's why the "bgcolour" section is not included in the template anymore. All Hallow&#39;s Wraith (talk) 20:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The "bgcolour" parameter was removed from the template. Some articles may still have it typed in, along with other old parameters like "height," but it's not functional anymore. You can look in the talk archives here for the discussion/decision for more info. --Melty girl (talk) 20:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Religious stance
I think that religious the actor or actresses religous stance should be mentioned in the infobox because this would help make their profile on the encyclopedia more encyclopedic --Hadseys (talk • contribs) 19:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Please no. Let that be something to be only mentioned in the article itself. If necessary. Garion96 (talk) 19:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I completely agree with Garion96. Infobox should be reserved for only the most important, key points.  Very few actors are notable for their religion.  In the context of their careers, it is usually incidental. Rossrs (talk) 20:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree strongly with Garion96 and Rossrs: no. --Melty girl (talk) 22:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I also add a no vote. The item also has the potential to become a hornets nest of POV pushing. What determines an entry in this section? The religion they are born into? The religion they are currently practising? And so on. MarnetteD | Talk 22:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Categories for Awards
What about automatically inserting the article into the award category? For example, if the grammyaward field is present, the infobox automatically adds Category:Grammy Award winners to the article. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 03:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Request for help in fixing an item
Note that this is a discussion that began on the talk page for the film project and has been transfered here to try and get the problem fixed.

This is a request for help in fixing an oddity that I have come across. Please take a look at the infobox for Alison Steadman where you will see this  in the spot where the role and performance should be. When you go into edit mode the correct info is there. I am not computer, or wikicommand, savvy enough to know where to go to fix this and I don't know if it is affecting other pages so any help that can be given will be much appreciated and thank you in advance for your time. MarnetteD | Talk 05:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The answer to your question is that there is no infobox parameter for the Olivier Awards. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I take that back - there is no discussed parameter in the template instructions. But it is there in the template code, so I suspect that the code may contain errors. Perhaps worth asking there? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your notes GS. I will copy this discussion and put it on the talk page for the template. If there is somewhere else that I should do this please let me know or feel free to copy it there yourself and thanks again. MarnetteD | Talk 05:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Template fix
The template is broken. The line:

| colspan="2" |

Needs to be replaced with:

| colspan="2" |

That should fix the problem. --Jeanenawhitney (talk) 06:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC) I found more problems, working on fixing them now.--Jeanenawhitney (talk) 08:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Fix template error on olivierawards/laurenceolivierawards
editprotected The following will fix the problem expressed above.

Find this:

And replace with this:

--Jeanenawhitney (talk) 08:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * done. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 21:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * My thanks to both Jeanenawhitney and CBM for looking into this. I am afraid that we aren't quite done fixing it yet though. If you take a look at Ms Steadmans page now you will see that there are all sorts of template instructions that are showing up along with the awards name. I know that we will track down what needs to get done eventually and thanks for your continued attention in this matter. MarnetteD | Talk 22:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I have undone my changes from earlier. Repeatedly editing highly used templates is discouraged, so I created Template:Infobox actor/Sandbox with the code of the template. Please use that to write and test the changes, and when it is perfect put up another editprotected request. This is the recommended practice for developing code for highly used templates. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 23:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Template fix olivierawards/laurenceolivierawards
editprotected See my changes at Template:Infobox actor/Sandbox. This finally fixes the olivierawards/laurenceolivierawards bug. You can see it working with Alison Steadman where it was discovered and I substituted Template:Infobox actor/Sandbox to show that it works.

Find this:

And replace with this:

Find this: {{#if:{{{awards | }}} {{{academyawards | }}} {{{afiawards | }}} {{{arielaward | }}} {{{baftaawards | }}} {{{cesarawards | }}} {{{emmyawards | }}} {{{filmfareawards | }}} {{{geminiawards | }}} {{{goldenglobeawards | }}} {{{goldenraspberryawards|}}} {{{goyaawards | }}} {{{grammyawards | }}} {{{olivierawards | }}} {{{iftaawards | }}} {{{imageaward | }}} {{{nationalfilmawards|}}} {{{screenactorguildsawards|{{{sagawards | }}}}}} {{{tonyawards | }}} {{{awards | }}} |

And replace with this:

{{#if:{{{awards | }}} {{{academyawards | }}} {{{afiawards | }}} {{{arielaward | }}} {{{baftaawards | }}} {{{cesarawards | }}} {{{emmyawards | }}} {{{filmfareawards | }}} {{{geminiawards | }}} {{{goldenglobeawards | }}} {{{goldenraspberryawards|}}} {{{goyaawards | }}} {{{grammyawards | }}} {{{olivierawards | }}} {{{laurenceolivierawards | }}} {{iftaawards | }}} {{{imageaward | }}} {{{nationalfilmawards|}}} {{{screenactorguildsawards|{{{sagawards | }}}}}} {{{tonyawards | }}} {{{awards | }}} |

The above adds {{{laurenceolivierawards | }}}

--Jeanenawhitney (talk) 13:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Can I just copy all the code from the sandbox back to this template? I would rather do that, since it reduces the number of errors that occur in editing. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 14:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure.--Jeanenawhitney (talk) 15:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Copied. This development method is very useful for changes to infoboxes, since it makes it easier to test the changes. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 15:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

This template has got another bug
After fixing the last bug another bug that I was not aware showed up. This bug is a minor bug forcing the awards line to display even though no award parameters are being used.

See Template talk:Infobox actor/Sandbox for what I found. And see the final cleanup at Template:Infobox actor/Sandbox which should cleanup all bugs. Feel free to just copy and paste.

--Jeanenawhitney (talk) 19:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I copied in the latest version. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 21:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Libby Tanner
The image seems to be getting enlarged to be bigger than it should be causing it to be pixalated. Peachey88 (Talk Page 10:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The infobox automatically resizes images to a specific width, but this can be adjusted manually if need be. I've gone ahead and fixed it, but the image is almost certainly eligible for deletion anyway. PC78 (talk) 11:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Protection
editprotected Just a head up, the main page is protected because of cascading protection on the User:John Reaves/temporary page. Peachey88 (Talk Page 09:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) This page is currently protected from editing because it is transcluded in the following pages, which are protected with the "cascading" option:
 * User:John Reaves/temporary
 * What exactly is the issue here? User:John Reaves/temporary is protected because John Reaves protected that page a couple of days ago. This template is always protected. Garion96 (talk) 16:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Never mind. I fixed it. The result is still the same though. This page is always protected. Garion96 (talk) 16:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Nationality
Concensus for inclusion of Nationality parameter was not reached after more then two weeks of open disscusion. --pete 17:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposal
I think that the nationality parameter should be added to all templates about people. The general Person infobox does have it and there is no reason to omit it in these other templates. Birthplace is not enough in some cases.

Preferably placed under the birthname parameter. -RayLast (talk) 14:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Hold on here we do not have a consensus on adding this. It first should be brought up for discussion first.--pete 15:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Let's get to a consensus then. -RayLast (talk) 15:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

 * This has been brought up before. Nationality if needed should be put into the article not in the infobox. See Nationality primaraly the area that states the following:

The legal sense of nationality, particularly in the English speaking world, may often mean citizenship, although they do not mean the same thing everywhere in the world; for instance, in the UK, citizenship is a branch of nationality which in turn ramifies to include other subcategories (see British nationality law). Citizens have rights to participate in the political life of the state of which they are a citizen, such as by voting or standing for election. Nationals need not immediately have these rights; they may often acquire them in due time.

Nationality can also mean membership in a cultural/historical group related to political or national identity, even if it currently lacks a formal state. This meaning is said by some authorities to cover many groups, including Kurds, Basques, Catalans, the Welsh, Scots, Palestinians, Tamils, and many others.
 * putting it in an infobox just makes it more confusing. See Template talk:Infobox actor/archive3 Even though it is about flags it also brings up the nationality point. Also see Template talk:Infobox actor/archive4. Further consensus is needed before making a change like this. --pete 15:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Putting it in an infobox does not force editors to include a nationality. It gives the option to those who have no doubt about the nationality of the subject. Remember, it's a template. Also, if the nationality can be included in the prose of the article, it means it is defined (by whatever means on whatever country with whichever laws), and could thus also have been included in the infobox. As I said before, the Person infobox does include the parameter and has existed way before these other person derivated infoboxes. I still say it must be included; not only on this infobox template but also on all others that do not include it. Note that a consensus cannot be reached by only two individuals with opposite opinions. I would also like additional Wikipedians to comment/argument on this matter. -RayLast (talk) 19:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Additional wikipedian here. Against. Just more infobox clutter. Garion96 (talk) 20:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Having these kind of parameters allows for better categorization and indexing as opposed to just including it in the prose of the article. When searching or browsing by categories it would be hard to find a Jewish genius for example. As of now you would only be able to find someone by their birthplace which does not always indicate the subject's nationality. Also, if you check all biographical articles, you will note that the first sentence is always in the following format: Name - dates - nationality - occupation. This obviously indicates the importance of its inclusion in the demographics of any person.~ RayLast  « Talk! » 21:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with the inclusion of the info in the article, just not the infobox. Garion96 (talk) 21:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * How do you do finds based on infobox parameters? --Melty girl (talk) 21:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I was wondering that too.  I'm against also.  The infobox has enough clutter, as Garion said, and as for categorization - that purpose is served by the categories, which are abused anyhow, with a lot of stupid and irrelevant detail such as "Irish Australian" to describe someone who's great-great grandfather was Irish.  I don't want to see that kind of level of detail added to the infobox, which should be kept brief and indisputable.  I fail to see what useful purpose would be served. Rossrs (talk) 21:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm fairly neutral on this one. On the one hand, I think it would be useful for someone like Richard E. Grant, who was born in Swaziland but is nevertheless British (also a good example of why flags shouldn't be used in infoboxes, so I shall promptly remove it). But it would be problematic for other articles. Is Rhys Ifans Welsh or British? Probably more trouble than it's really worth. PC78 (talk) 22:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Conditional support as long as it's an option and not a mandate. --Adoniscik (talk) 04:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * There's no way of enforcing a condition such as this. The problem between option and mandate, is that one editor can basically "mandate" if the field is used.   So, if someone uses it an article, and another editor disagrees, the response would be that the field exists and therefore is OK to use.  In theory, if one editor had the means and the time to go through and exercise their option to add the nationality field into every single actor  infobox, nobody could really challenge that if the field had been supported here.  Rossrs (talk) 07:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * A disagreeing editor may not be able to challenge the fact of including the nationality when one editor insists in keeping it after it has actually been included, since it is OK to use, but the disagreeing editor has every right to propose the correct nationality and edit accordingly. For debatable cases it can be agreed upon within editors that the nationality not be included in particular cases. For the immense mayority of the cases the nationality can still be clearly identified and still forms an indispensable fact in the identification of the subject. Think about it, the nationality of someone is more related to their person and career than for example an actor's spouses or number of children (which had no problem in being included in the infobox). Tom Cruise is an American actor is a way better description than Tom Cruise is an actor with three children. An infobox is simply a box with factual, short formattable information and nationality seems to fit the bill since it can be expressed with only one, or a couple of words. ~ RayLast  « Talk! » 14:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You're absolutely right, but I think I should clarify that the point I was making was in relation to a "conditional" agreement. It's either one or the other.   Most of the fields here are optional in their individual use, but I don't think that should be the point of this discussion which I see as : either the field is included or it's not included.  Decide that first and then work out the details.   I agree with your general opinion though.  As for the spouses and children - "which had no problem being in the infobox" - well, all I can say is you missed a long, spirited discussion.  I wish you'd been here then!    I was against including those fields but I was out-debated, and I still feel that they shouldn't be there.   Given the choice between "nationality" and "spouses and children", I think "nationality" is more useful, but I'm more in favour of keeping the infobox simple, and not adding too many fields.  It's already too big, in my opinion.  ("Burial location" is another one.  How many people look up a biographical article with the main objective being to find out where the subject's remains are located? - I think that's way less relevant than "nationality" too.)    I think the infobox should be used as a supplement to the lead section,  but it's the lead section rather than the infobox that should be summarizing the article.    Rossrs (talk) 16:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Getting off topic a bit, perhaps it's time re-open the debate over some of these other fields? As I recall, "Burial location" was slipped in last year without so much as a word of discussion, and I'd be another to happily see it go. PC78 (talk) 17:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I would really like to just resolve the nationality parameter issue for now. It is my intention to do this by accentuating its importance by its own merits instead of being compared to other parameters. It is not a stubborn rage. "Too much clutter" is highly relative as it refers to "insignificant" facts. Whether or not other parameters are significant is not my concern for now. What I do want to stress is the fact that I do consider nationality to be highly significant for inclusion, specifically in persons infoboxes. I am also considering, and understand, that if it is included, it does not imply it must be specified in all articles, but allows the specification of this significant parameter. ~ RayLast  « Talk! » 18:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I sympathise, but you still haven't addressed the concerns raised above regarding nationality and citizenship. As I kind of mentioned myself, there are certain POV issues when (for example) stating that an actor is English or Welsh rather than British. Comparisons with other fields aren't invalid; several of the existing fields have unresolved issues, and we shouldn't be adding another if it's only going to cause problems. PC78 (talk) 19:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see why it should cause any problems since the article prose itself would already identify said actor as English, Welsh or British. If there is consensus on placing it in the article there also will be for the infobox. Don't you think? ~ RayLast  « Talk! » 19:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Assuming, of course, that there is a concensus for the article. What I'm trying to get at is the confusion over nationality and citizenship as outlined at the start of this discussion. Scotland, for example, is a nation, but not an independent state with its own citizenship. It's one thing to say in the lead of an article that "this person is a Scottish actor", but if you're identifying that persons Nationality in the infobox, then it needs to be clear what is meant by "nationality". To give another example, do we regard Anthony Hopkins as Welsh or British, or, since he also holds US citizenship, American? As I said above, I don't necessarily oppose the inclusion of this field in the infobox (in fact, I've even considered proposing it myself before now), but we do need to be clear on its usage, and we do need to have a concensus. PC78 (talk) 20:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * And if you really want a headache, check out the long-term madness at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies) over how to identify nationality for UK citizens in the lead sentence. Oy vey. --Melty girl (talk) 20:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you 100% plus If we open this up then what about dual citizenship. Or even what about a persons ethnicity? Or what about heritage? I'm struggling with what Ray is trying to do here. I am a white male, born in America, In the State of Illinois, In the town of Berwyn. My blood line is 50% Czech, and the rest Irish, Finish, Cherokee Indian, and who nos what else. I commend Ray with the fact that he is proud of his heritage. But if we allow this then lets add Heritage also in fair respects. --pete 22:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Pete, if you were to write an article about yourself, considering your bloodline and heritage, think about how you would fill in the blank: Pete (born Month Day, Year), is a ___________ Wikipedian. People with mixed bloodlines and diverse heritages still have a nationality. ~ RayLast  « Talk! » 00:54, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I realize there is a lot of debate on how to actually identify nationality because of all the previously mentioned and completely valid reasons. On that premise, followed by your claims, it would be easy to conclude that no nationality should be included in the articles whatsoever. However, it is still included in all article opening paragraphs! Why? Because it is undoubtedly an indispensable fact in biographical descriptions. Its usage in articles proliferates and it seems like it has been fairly agreed upon. Note also that we don't usually see something like: "An actor with American citizenship" and their heritage details, if notable, are explained in the article, while the nationality has already been mentioned and agreed upon. The debate should not be about deciding whether nationality is a confusing fact or not or how hard it would be to assign a nationality to a subject. It should be about the sufficient relevance of the fact as to be included in an infobox template. Nationalities are already being assigned to all actors in the articles! Whatever is decided as their nationality in the opening paragraph would be the one in the infobox also; this would not reignite the debate since it would be an exact copy, and I doubt anyone would want to put anything different than what is specified in the article. Side note: I think including the Support, Oppose, and Neutral sections abruptly stops deeper reasoning by debating users, but oh well, a decision must be made, I guess. ~ RayLast  « Talk! » 23:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, and finally, I don't see any can of worms happening in Template:Infobox Person and it still seems like a decent infobox to me. Maybe you should do something about removing all the nationality clutter over there too then. Cheers! ~ RayLast  « Talk! » 01:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) Support - Nationality is highly significant and goes hand in hand with name, birthdate and occupation in any biographical demographics. Not "clutter" at all. ~ RayLast  « Talk! » 00:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Support - in comparison to other parameters like lists of spouses or domestic partners, this seems by far more relevant. So why include the other and not this? Not clutter at all. Johann Petrak (talk) 08:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Oppose - Can of worms as per Melty girl, Infobox clutter as per Garion96. Plus my own opinions.--pete 22:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose - Reasons given above and there is already an unending edit war over UK/British/Scottish/etc going on when they are mentioned in the opening paragraph. There is no need to reignite it in the infobox. MarnetteD | Talk 22:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose for the reasons given above. It's enough that we have it in the opening line of an article. PC78 (talk) 00:27, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose Too much clutter and indeed opening a can of worms. Garion96 (talk) 00:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose potentially opening a can of worms, and adding clutter with little benefit.  Would be redundant in many cases in which the country of birth = country of nationality.  Rossrs (talk) 05:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose, though I don't know why this consensus process had to be so formalized. --Melty girl (talk) 17:53, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to remove some parameters
See the discussion in the section above. How about removing the parameters restingplace and restingplacecoordinates. Some other ones which I don't really care for are "influences" and "influenced". They can be much better explained (and sourced) in the article itself. Plus it could be an endless list. Look how many influenced Stella Adler could theoretically have in her infobox. Garion96 (talk) 14:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree with all of the above. Resting place and coordiantes are of little significance, while Influences are something that require proper discussion (and referencing) within the main article. PC78 (talk) 14:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree with Garion and PC78 - resting place and coordinates are not important in understanding the subject of the article.  Influenced and influences are also too vague to use properly in a list format.  Within the article they can be discussed and given context.   Stella Adler is a great example of a potentially long list, and culling that list would introduce POV into the infobox - something that should be exclusively for provable, relevant facts.    I also would remove spouse, children and parents as being trivial and of little relevance in most cases.   See Burt Lancaster and especially Marie McDonald for lists of spouses, 10 between them, none of whom are notable enough for their own articles.   So we know their names, and in the infobox, that's all we do know.    Seems like listing information for the sake of listing information, to me.  Once again, the article is the right place to discuss these people.  Rossrs (talk) 15:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm far less concerned with the spouse/children/parents fields (which are fine in articles like Angelina Jolie) as I am with the awards section, which still has massive problems that were never properly addressed. But I don't think it would be too constructive to turn this into a discussion about the infobox as a whole. Let's just focus on a few things at a time. PC78 (talk) 15:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's start with one thing at a time, then: I agree that various influences can be much better described in the actual article, so does anyone disagree with the removal of the "influences" and "influenced" parameters? If not, I'll boldly go ahead and remove them. --Conti|✉ 15:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems to be used in relatively few articles so I think it would be appropriate to remove it.  That may be the only way of finding out whether anyone supports its use. Rossrs (talk) 20:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, these two are gone (for now). Now how about the resting place parameters? Garion96 (talk) 22:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Kill 'em. PC78 (talk) 23:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Good one PC78. I say remove them also. The Find-a-Grave website that is added as an external link to several bios more than suffices. MarnetteD | Talk 00:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * hold on there....i say bring 'em back!!! ...just kidding, junk 'em all. --emerson7 04:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * They are gone as well. Garion96 (talk) 18:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposed change to "Website" field
I was wondering how people felt about changing this field to the same format used in other templates like Infobox Model and Infobox Film (examples: Heidi Klum, Cloverfield)? This would require changing the following lines: to this:

This would mean that the user only has to insert the plain URL in the field rather than a hyperlink, and it would offer standardization across all articles. Often I find myself wanting to hyperlink the URL as "Official website", which just looks plain stupid. The proposed change would simplify things and make the infobox look neater.

The only real propblem would be how to implement the change. I suspect a lot of articles already use this field, and they would probably have to be edited manually to update them to the new format. I was going to suggest introducing a new  field so that the old   field could be gradually phased out, but unfortunately the infobox already accepts   as an alternative to. Perhaps a bot could assist in making the change, unless people feel that this would be too much effort for minimal gain?

Thoughts? PC78 (talk) 20:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Neater. Wi ki pe di an  13:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Looks good. If any help is needed updating boxes in specific articles please let me know and I will be glad to do what I can. MarnetteD | Talk 16:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Looks much tidier, and I'll also help update boxes in specific articles if necessary. Rossrs (talk) 20:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks like we're all in agreement then! :) I think we should throw caution to the wind and just update the existing parameter, even though it might break some articles in the short term. I've added a category to the code so that the updated template will automatically categorize any articles which use this field. This should make it a simple task of going down the list and fixing what's broken. The category can then be removed and deleted once the job is done. I'll make a formal request to edit the template later, unless anyone has any further comments. PC78 (talk) 19:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ I hope you like the change. I have created the hidden Category:Infobox Actor templates with websites - wait for the articles to work their way through the job queue, then go through the list and make sure that all the websites are correctly formatted.  Once you've finished with the update,  the code from the infobox, and WP:CSD or WP:CSD the category.  Good luck! Happy‑melon 17:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It should be above the "Awards". I know it's in collapsed state but when ya click "Show" n' if the awards is too long, ya have to scroll down before ya can see it, IMO.  Wi ki pe di an  02:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ Happy‑melon 16:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Per discussion above, remove the category (which has been tagged for deletion) from the end of this line: | [ Official website] All articles have now been checked and updated. (Phew!) PC78 (talk) 11:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Merge "Birth name" with "Born"
Thoughts? Wi ki pe di an 12:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * In what way? "Born" already consists of two parameters (birthdate & birthplace). PC78 (talk) 15:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * In this way. Wi ki pe di an  13:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I like the idea of reducing unnecessary characters, and this would make it look less "busy". I think it looks good. Rossrs (talk) 13:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes it looks good, but if Wikipedian's code is used it will look really messed up when birthname is not used or even when birthdate is also not used. Needs more work before it can be changed.

--pete 17:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Fixed. PC78 (talk) 18:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I support. I've liked how other infoboxes have done the same.  —   pd_THOR  undefined | 18:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Change: to: PC78 (talk) 13:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ Happy‑melon 17:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Ty. Wi ki pe di an  02:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Notability of parents and children
What is the rationale behind the requirement that parents and children have to be notable while spouses and domestic partners do not? If information about number and names of children is an interesting fact, notability should not be relevant. Especially when only some children are listed (the notable ones) this might give the wrong impression that the persons listed are the only children. Johann Petrak (talk) 08:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Especially when only some children are listed (the notable ones) this might give the wrong impression that the persons listed are the only children.
 * Put a "Notable" in front of "Children", IMO. Wi ki pe di an  13:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I assume the rationale is that spouse/partner is regarded as being more perinent to the subject. I'm a little ambivalent about insisting that parents and children be notable, as it might encourage some to create undesirable articles for people of little or no independant notability. PC78 (talk) 19:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Requiring a child be notable for an infobox is a bit ridiculous. What does it hurt just to list an actor's children?  KellyAna (talk) 23:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The above person (KellyAna) is restoring non-notable childrens' names to infobxes, even though there is no consensus that the long-standing description of the "children" part should be changed. All Hallow&#39;s Wraith (talk) 23:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * "Long standing", I don't think so. The field doesn't say "notable children" and if there's no consensus, there needs to be.  As for the wording of your post, this isn't a place for "tattling", it's for discussing what the field should be used for.  Even the comment above me indicates a questionable need for notability in the field.  Why not wait and see if a concensus can be reached verses coming and saying "she's removing" rather than contributing your thoughts of should or shouldn't the field require notability. KellyAna (talk) 23:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * This description of the "children" section has been here since at least February 2007 . Over a year - I would say that is long-standing. A consensus was already reached. Obviously, anyone can start up a discussion again (as you have) and argue that the description should be changed. Since that change has not yet happened, I don't see why you would restore these names to the infobox. All Hallow&#39;s Wraith (talk) 23:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Then where is this consensus? Just because something has been in place for a year doesn't mean it's set in stone or consensus can't change.  And if you look, I didn't start the discussion, others did and I replied.  Notability of children shouldn't be required as this is an encyclopedia and should include all available information about a subject, not just selected information.  Again, is "your opinion of long standing" your only "feeling" on the issue?  If it is, then change is in order because "just because" isn't a valid argument. KellyAna (talk) 00:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * "this is an encyclopedia and should include all available information about a subject, not just selected information" - this argument has nothing to do with what we include in the infobox, not the rest of the article, since the infobox is supposed to indeed include only select information. All Hallow&#39;s Wraith (talk) 02:10, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't that be simply your opinion. Obviously it's not mine as I think you're wrong and your assumptions are incorrect.   It has everything to do with the field.  The infobox should include all available information for the fields the box contains.  It does for EVERY other infobox out there.  There's no "notability" option to "producer" on a television series. The producer is the producer even if it's his first television show.  It's not about notability, it's about knowledge of who produced the show.  As should be true for the children of those celebrities deemed worthy of being on Wikipedia.  Since when does an infobox have only fields for special people?  An infobox is for INFORMATION at a glance.  Children aren't worthy unless it's Jennifer Aniston listed as John Aniston's daughter?  That's nonsensical. There's no justification.  If an infobox isn't for all information in the available fields, what is the point of having them at all?  At least, what is the point "in your opinion?"  You are the first person I've ever heard say the information in an infobox should be extremely limited. KellyAna (talk) 02:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

If I had to make a choice between all children or no children in the infobox (not in the prose), I would choose to remove the field entirely. The article's prose is what's most important and what should get the most space. An infobox should be a very quick way to get the most basic stats about a person, and actors and filmmakers are not notable for their family -- they're notable for their career. Their occupation, age, major awards won, years active, etc. are the kinds of simple, important things to present. So if we're going down a path of adding all children to the field, then I say remove the field. Information in an infobox should be of paramount important to the knowledge of the biography in question; if a child isn't notable, then why clutter up the box? The whole kitchen sink shouldn't be in there. So either keep it as consensus has been, with only children who are notable on their own (see the archives, KellyAna), or get rid of the field.--Melty girl (talk) 06:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * actors and filmmakers are not notable for their family
 * I disagree with this as a blanket statement. Brad and Angelina are knows just as much for their children as for themselves, as are Tom and Katie and baby Suri.  With the media's fascination with Jennifer Lopez's twins, Nicole Kidman's baby bump, Halle Berry's baby watch, the children of stars are just as famous as the stars.  As for your "directive" telling me what to do, it's up to you to prove prior consensus and find the "rule" that says once a consensus is reach, the thought is set in stone and can never change.  I assure you, you won't find it. I'd also like to see the information where the infobox is only a snapshot and shouldn't contain a lot of information.  My experience is that that is far from true.  The majority of articles with infoboxes I have seen and edited have a great deal of information in a summary template.  Why is this project "special?" KellyAna (talk) 19:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You're wrong: Brad and Angelina are not known just as much for their children as for themselves, not at all. They are famous actors with long resumes of hugely successful movies. It is only because they are so popular that their children have become of interest to the tabloid media. But their children have done nothing notable as of yet except to be born to famous parents. And those famous parents are notable because of their acting careers, not because of their children -- don't get it reversed. This is an encyclopedia, not a gossip mag focused primarily on the personal lives of famous people. Just because the media talks about something doesn't make it an appropriate focus or content for Wikipedia. And of course, infoboxes are supposed to present quick summary information about a subject, not a rehash of the entire article. There should be limits to how much info goes there. And that shouldn't make you upset, because the prose of the article is far more flexible and it's not like you're being banned from discussing family members in the article.
 * I never gave you any "directive" -- I have no idea what you're talking about there. I was stating my opinion to everyone, not just you, saying what I think should happen. I no more gave you a directive by stating my opinion than you have. Also, you are the only one pressing to change an existing consensus. Of course consensus is not written in stone -- but to overturn the existing consensus you will have to build a new consensus, and you haven't done that. The old one is "proven" if you would bother yourself to read the archives of this talk page where consensus for the style rules governing this template was built.
 * I'm fine with adding the word "notable" to the parameter if that will make things clearer. I'm also in favor of removing the children parameter entirely. --Melty girl (talk) 00:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't believe I'm wrong. I've seen one thing Angelina's done and 4 things Brad's done but know all their children's names.  The only reason I've seen 4 things Brad's done is because I love George Clooney and Brad just happens to be in the Ocean's movies.  You may believe these people aren't known for their children, but how do you explain the millions they receive for being on the covers of People magazine for posing with their children?  As a parent, my child is part of me so what is really the big deal of having the names of actors' children in the info box?  If you want limits on the infobox, remove the fields you don't think should be there.  Again, other projects have far better infoboxes, this one should take note.
 * Your "directive" was for me to look at the archives. It's actually up to you to prove that the archives hold support for your argument.  KellyAna (talk) 02:09, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Hard to buy parts of this argument - off the top of my head, I can't think of a single one of Pitt's children's names, although I can certainly name more than a few of his (and Jolie's) movies. I'm sure that's the case for at least a significant amount of people. And certainly Pitt is better known for starring in some hit films, not for having children. Pitt and Jolie's children may have some notoriety, but what about the son of a celebrity on the level of Julianna Margulies? (an article in which you restored the name to the infobox) I also agree that the "children" field could theoretically be removed altogether, although I don't mind how it ends up looking in an article like, say, Dustin Hoffman (Children - 6; including Jake Hoffman (born 1981)) All Hallow&#39;s Wraith (talk) 03:01, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Hard to buy your argument. You edit only actors and don't know Brad Pitt's kids?  You can't walk into a grocery store without seeing him and Shiloh or Pax or Madison on the cover of half a dozen magazines.  No, this isn't a fan site but it should be a place where people can come to get facts that affirm or defunct tabloids. Baby bumps are the norm, not the exception.  The point is, all or nothing.  Either have a children field or don't. And what Pitt is "better known for" is really opinion.  I could pull dozens of stories about his kids very easily. KellyAna (talk) 03:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * "You edit only actors and don't know Brad Pitt's kids? " - I'm more interested in his films than his kids. :) All Hallow&#39;s Wraith (talk) 14:37, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If it's all or nothing, then my vote would be for nothing. Lists of children is not what this infobox is for; actors are generally notable for their acting, not for having children. As I recall, the idea behind this parameter was to use it for linking to the articles of notable children (such as Charlie Sheen, Michael Douglas, Angelina Jolie etc.), not for listing the names of someone's three year old kid. Better not to have it at all if it's just providing needless clutter. I find it very hard to agree with your belief that Brad Pitt is equally notable for his children as he is for his acting career. PC78 (talk) 08:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I can name all Brad's kids and not more than 4 of his movies and three include the Oceans movies. If he wasn't in Ocean's 11 I never would have seen anything he's done.  I know people that didn't know him before he married Jennifer Aniston.  But that's not why I came here this morning.
 * Why not do what other infoboxes do, make it collapsible? Then you can have the children field, add everyone's children, but it's not out there to be immediately seen.  That gives people the information in a snapshot but isn't cluttering the page unless it's expanded by the reader. KellyAna (talk) 15:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * This is an encyclopedia, not a gossip site. The fact that you personally spend more time learning about Brad Pitt's children than his films has no bearing on the policies and focus of Wikipedia. You have not built a consensus for a change in how this infobox is used, period. Until you can do so, there will be no change. This is a community project; until you can build a new consensus you are bound to respect the existing one. The fact that you are unwilling to read the archives of this template to better understand how this infobox operates shows a disrespect for this project. --Melty girl (talk) 20:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * First, stop with the false accusations. I don't "spend time learning", it's just hard to avoid the magazines with him all over the cover where I work.  And your double speak is actually funny.  You say it's not a gossip site, it's an encyclopedia but then turn around and say what can't be included about a person.  How is limiting and excluding information "encyclopedic"?  And, again, more accusations, "unwilling" how about unable to find which is why I asked you for proof.  I find that often people say "previous consensus" when there is none and since I couldn't easily find it, it's up to you to prove it exists.  You sound like you claim ultimate authority, there will be no change.  Are you the "owner" of this template?  NO, Wikipedia is.  Show me the "existing consensus" otherwise I will continue to challenge its existence since you can't prove there is one. As for what I have or haven't built, I didn't start this, I added to it so obviously I'm not the only one wondering if there's a consensus and where it is.  And, FYI, since you don't get it, Pitt was an example, not a definitive.  I personally don't like him which is the point, I don't like him but know his kids' names.KellyAna (talk) 20:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow, you really twisted what I said. The authority I referred to was the community's not mine. I said that until you can build consensus for your perspective (that all children should go in this infobox), then you don't have the right to make the change on your own. The template documentation, which specfies notability, and the very last archive demonstrate the existing consensus on this topic, and there's probably more about it further back in the archives. If you can't find it, then you probably just don't want to accept an opinion that contradicts yours. But at this point, I'm giving up on trying to explain on how things work to you. I hope that others will rejoin the conversation. Obviously, you're free to keep arguing whatever you want; but because this is a community project it means that you can't get a new consensus to make your change, then yes, there will be no change, no matter how long you go on posting about it. That's how Wikipedia operates -- by consensus. --Melty girl (talk) 21:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Seriously, you want to knock off the personal attacks? I didn't twist anything, I took what you wrote at face value where you insulted me and did so again just now.  Stop, okay, I didn't attack you and you need to stop attacking me just because I asked a question and made some comments.  Really, WHERE did I say I was going to change ANYTHING?  KellyAna (talk) 21:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Remove the parameter
This is not about excluding information, since children are mentioned in the article itself. It is about whether it's important enough to be mentioned in the infobox. From looking at this discussion, there seems to be a growing consensus to remove the children parameter all together. Garion96 (talk) 21:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed. If we can get consensus for this, think it would be useful to remove parents at the same time, for the same reason. --Melty girl (talk) 21:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Fine by me. Having seen plenty of examples where the notability requirement simply isn't being followed, I would now be happy to lose both of these parameters. PC78 (talk) 21:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree to removal. KellyAna (talk) 21:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, gone. Garion96 (talk) 21:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)