Template talk:Infobox actor/Archive 6

Minor changes to "Awards" section
Change: ! style="background-color:" | Awards to: ! style="background-color:" |    Awards won

Nothing controversial, but I'll see if anyone has any comments first. The change to "Awards won" was first suggested by Melty Girl some time ago, but was never commented on. I think it's a good idea though, because it makes it explicitly clear that this is not the place to be listing award nominations. Just to clarify, this doesn't affect the usage of the infobox, as the documentation already makes it clear that this section is for awards won. The other change simply fixes the rather odd off-centre position of the awards title. PC78 (talk) 19:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * A very good idea. Some of these infoboxes become twice as long as the article once they start listing nominations as well as wins. A comprehensive awards section towards the end of the article should suffice for those that need it. I also feel that there are too many awards listed in the infobox now, but, I know it opens a can of "if that award is listed why can't this one be listed also" worms. Thanks for your work on this PC78. MarnetteD | Talk 21:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I concur, great idea. —   pd_THOR  undefined | 21:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ Happy‑melon 17:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The 23 spaces in front of the "Awards won" were IMO a pretty bad idea. The number is totally arbitrary and it depends on the viewer's system where the text is actually displayed. Now on my system, the text is still positioned off center but it also takes two lines instead of one. Someone should change it to be correctly centered if possible. --fschoenm (talk) 00:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The change can be reverted if need be. In my defence, I can only go by what I see on my own screen. PC78 (talk) 00:58, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * QFT. Wi ki pe di an  02:02, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The arbitrary use of 23 spaces is arbitrary and looks awful on my (admittedly ancient pre-Firefox) Mozilla browser. The documentation for  here says its use has a "large-ish cost in pre-expansion template size".  I hope some other solution can be introduced. 68.165.76.203 (talk) 03:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC).


 * Nobody seems to have an idea how to fix it so that the text is really centered. Could we revert this change for now? It looks worse than before with this arbitrary number of spaces. --fschoenm (talk) 22:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Change: ! style="background-color:" | Awards Back to: ! style="background-color:" | Awards Wi ki pe di an 13:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

You mean: ! style="background-color:" |    Awards won to: ! style="background-color:" | Awards won Fair enough, since this seems to be causing problems with some browsers. PC78 (talk) 13:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC) ✅ Happy‑melon 20:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Template's name
Perhaps this is an old chestnut, but I'm wondering why this template is named "Infobox actor" rather than "Infobox Actor", i.e. "Infobox" (the template class) + Sentence-cased topic...? This pattern seems to be the (understandable) norm elsewhere... Sardanaphalus (talk) 17:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Portuguese link
Please add  pt:Predefinição:Infobox actor  to language links.—Sdrtirs (talk) 22:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. Interwikis go to Template:Infobox actor/doc, so there is no need to request edits from here :-) -- ReyBrujo (talk) 01:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Minor fixes
editprotected At the top of the awards section, change: {{{!}} class="collapsible collapsed" width=100% to: {{{!}} class="collapsible collapsed" style="width: 100%; background: #FAFAFA" This fixes the background colour of the awards section so that it matches the rest of the infobox. It's only a small difference, but it's there.

Also change: ! Other name(s) ! Spouse(s) ! Domestic partner(s) to: ! Other name(s) ! Spouse(s) ! Domestic partner(s) This will stop the (s) from wrapping onto the next line by itself. PC78 (talk) 21:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Merge with Template:Infobox actor voice
Add to the top of the template, under the tag.

-

I've been looking at Infobox actor voice, and I think it should be merged into this template. There's nothing in that infobox that we don't have here; all of it's parameters are equivalent to those in this infobox, and it's only being used in less than 500 articles. The merge would require a few minor edits to this template, but it would be a fairly easy job. PC78 (talk) 19:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Without this topic, I had a hard time actually finding the voice actor template! Highwind888 (talk) 00:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * ✅. feydey (talk) 14:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Fix for CSS issue and for empty table cell
At the top of the awards section, change: {| class="collapsible collapsed" style="width: 100%; background: #FAFAFA" to {| class="collapsible collapsed" style="width: 100%; background-color: inherit;" This makes it so that if someone ever decides to change the color of infoboxes, we don't need to hunt down every included table to fix a forced background color

Also change: ! style="background-color:" |    Awards won to ! colspan= "2" style="background-color:" |    Awards won Cause there was an empty table cell messing up the alignment in some cases. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 18:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ Icestorm815  •  Talk  21:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * However it looks like that edit has broken something.
 * As this is being displayed

colspan= "2" style="background-color: ed8" |

TubularWorld (talk) 21:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It seems that the most recent edit might have caused a problem in the template. see Dorothy Lyman.  -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 21:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

What is the purpose behind the first of these edits? The colour of the infobox is already determined by the template code, for what reason would we ever have to "hunt down every included table to fix a forced background color"? PC78 (talk) 23:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC) ...not to mention that it doesn't work anyway. was recently added to that line to fix the background colour issue; the proposed change breaks it again. The second proposed change also dosen't work;  is already in the code, which is why the edit was causing problems. PC78 (talk) 23:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Crap. I should have checked back in yesterday I see. To avoid this from occurring again, Try taking the the code from my SandboxTemplate. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 16:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC) ✅ Happy‑melon 20:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) inherit is a CSS 2.1 property. I guess IE doesn't support that (once again). Suggest alternative value of "transparent" which basically does the same. This is needed because we are talking about the background of the TABLE here, not of the headerlines. The background of the infobox is set trough "class=infobox". The background of the awards table was not set so far and as such defaulted to another color. Using   to set it is dirty because if someone changes the infobox CSS, then the color for the awards table needs changing in the template by hand or you will have again mismatching colors. For this "background: transparent" and inherit were invented. Transparent causes the table to take the color of the elements placed below it in the Z layer. Inherit makes it take the computed value of its parent element. Ergo for our purposes, inherit would be better, but transparent would work as well and is probably supported by IE (I did not test that btw.)
 * 2) this was a copy paste error. There is a space-character between colspan and the "2", which should not have been there (my c&p error), and &amp;#35; was turned into it's unescaped variant of # (wikicode vs. interpreted code c&p error).

Genie Awards
There should also be added a section to recognize those who have earned a Genie Award. It seems only natural since there Gemini Award is already there. NorthernThunder (talk) 18:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. If we're going to have a section for awards in the infobox (though I still don't think we should), then it needs to be inclusive, not exclusive. PC78 (talk) 16:54, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Domestic Partner
This parameter needs more clarification, specifically where the people involved live in a jurisdiction where there is a specific legal meaning (and often registration). It is not correct to refer to two people living together as "domestic partners" in cities or states where that term has a clearly defined legal definition. Unless somebody objects, I'm going to change the parameter info in a day or two to reflect real-world definitions. Pairadox (talk) 05:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * See /archive4#Partners. Wi ki pe di an  12:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I object! And there is previous consensus for the domestic partners parameter. There is no reason we have to stick to the legal definition of "domestic partner". If we do, it will mean that people who have cohabited for 5, 10 or 20 years, but their legal registration as domestic partners cannot be verified, will not be listed as domestic partners, and that's a loss of information for WP, whether it's Goldie Hawn and Kurt Russell or Ellen DeGeneres and Portia de Rossi. There is no reason to use a strict legal definition of the term and force people to research the laws of each jurisdiction that two notable people reside in, not to mention whether they've actually registered as domestic partners. And just because some people aren't legally registered as domestic partners doesn't mean that we can't note that two notable people live together; that's biased, because not everyone has access to governmental regulation of their relationships, and some may not want it. If two people choose to live together -- meaning that they are partnered domestically -- and that fact is verifiable, then that is enough to list them as domestic partners. It's not just a legal term! We're trying to reflect the reality of people's family relationships in actor/filmmaker biographies, not the multiple laws of the planet. If we were designating co-habitators as "married," you might have a point; otherwise, I think you're off-the mark. --Melty girl (talk) 18:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * good words melty girl...good words and well put! i concur. --emerson7 18:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Also absolutely opposed to this imposition of a legal standard that is not relevant to this parameter. The definition makes clear that it is not using the term in a "legal" sense. That is based on consensus for this Infobox actor.  For the dispute relating to this move, see Talk:Heath Ledger and the Infoboxes of Ledger and Michelle Williams and also WP:AGF.  Thank  you. --NYScholar (talk) 01:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * As I point out there, the claims in this section (first para.) are based on WP:NOR and violated WP:LOP not to do such "original research"; there is no way for Wikipedians to know the legal facts of life in the lives of these "domestic partners" (in the general sense of the parameter). To claim to need to know this kind of information for listing in Infobox actor or other infoboxes throughout Wikipedia opens a can of worms that Wikipedia should not be opening.  We do not delve into the personal and private legal affairs of living (or dead) persons who are public figures (celebrity actors, e.g.) in creating encyclopedia biographies; see Public figures and WP:BLP for policies and links to related guidelines.  We use reliable published third-party sources, which, in the case of Heath Ledger and Michelle Williams, support the statement that they lived together in a committed relationship for two years (and, hence, were "domestic partners" in the sense defined in the parameter in Template:Infobox actor, as currently defined).  To try to change the definition of the parameter in order to prevail in an editing dispute in one or two articles is not good editing practice; see WP:AGF.
 * There are many articles in Wikipedia that "domestic partner" is used in and more than one infobox in which it is a parameter. To alter it wily-nily, without a formal proposal to do so, in the midst of an editing dispute in one or two articles, is not Wikipedia practice either.  There is no consensus for deleting the information from the infobox in Heath Ledger or Michelle Williams and to do so violates the current definition of the parameter.
 * There is no "legal" information required for this parameter. The meaning is general usage, not technical legal terminology.  It is "informational" not "legal."  This is not a legal journal; it is an encyclopedia.  Wikipedians do not have the legal credentials, qualifications, or experience in most cases (and if they do it is not generally verifiable) to make legal claims about such matters in articles and infoboxes.  --NYScholar (talk) 01:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Currently, it may not be clear what "longterm" refers to in the parameter for "Domestic partner"; it may need defintion. In the Human rights issues discussion that I link to in Talk:Heath Ledger, it points out that for legal purposes, "6 months" is considered the term for "longterm" domestic partners who are seeking benefits from their employers. But the legal matter is not pertinent here, since we are not talking about legal benefits from employers, rental legal agreements, and so on. The parameter refers to a "romantic relationship" considered "longterm" in the context of Infobox actor; in Hollywood, e.g., "longterm" has a different context than in a rural place in Kansas perhaps or in Western Australia. For couples to stay together for 2 years is considered "longterm" in the world of acting; in New York City, 6 months may be considered "longterm" for the purposes of granting legal benefits to a couple (independent of sexual orientation or preference); we need to stay in keeping with all the requirements of WP:BLP in constructing infoboxes for actors and other living persons (who may be or have been related to dead persons) and also of Neutral point of view and WP:POV. The parameter needs to be clearly defined in relation to what is intended by "longterm" (a relative term depending on one's interpretation given fluctuating contexts of geography and cultures, e.g.). --NYScholar (talk) 02:06, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Other relatives
What about a field for siblings/other relatives? Having a brother or sister who is also an actor is notable. I was thinking of the Deschanel sisters. Emily's page uses the Celebrity (i.e. Person) template which mentions Zooey, but Zooey's page uses the Actor template which isn't able to mention Emily. StAnselm (talk) 00:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it's unnecessary detail for the infobox. We don't need everything in the infobox -- the lead section of the article should suffice. --Melty girl (talk) 06:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think that notable siblings are directly relavent to an actor's career, besides rare exceptions such as the Olsen twins. Actually I'm more inclined to say the same about parents and children than what I have been previously. PC78 (talk) 16:52, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

infobox icons
there's been a discussion opened up at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. although it may or may not be the correct forum, it is certainly of concern to all infobox tenders. all are invited to participate. cheers! --emerson7 01:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

add Golden Calf Awards
Since the infobox already has awards for countries such as Spain and France (the Goya and the Cesar Awards) shouldn't there be an award added for the cinema of The Netherlands? -- User:Music2611 CT
 * We have the Other Awards section where this can be added. --pete 11:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * But why is there an exclusive section for the (for example) Cesar Awards-- User:Music2611 CT
 * Maybe because there are more Cesar Awards then Golden Calf awards. I see only a few less then 10 actor infobox that would use this. --pete 12:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe in the future there will be more-- User:Music2611 CT
 * I can see from the article page alone that there are more than that, and that's ignoring the first 18 years that this award was presented. As long as we're having award sections in the infobox, then I see no good reason not to include this one. PC78 (talk) 12:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you think that way, but I can't do it myself, so I would very much appreciate it if you could do it for me.-- User:Music2611 CT 14:29, March 29, 2008 (UTC)
 * I can't, you need an admin to do it. Hence the editprotected template. PC78 (talk) 14:21, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Do what, exactly? What code needs to be added and/or changed? Happy‑melon 17:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Add: between geminiawards and goldenglobeawards, and add  to this line: PC78 (talk) 18:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Change:

To:

I've changed the  to   and added the. Wi ki pe di an 03:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅. You should seriously consider having a rationalisation of the award fields, however - perhaps something that works along the lines of goldenglobeBest TV Show 1958 Alfred Hitchcock Presents Cecil B. DeMille Award 1972 Lifetime Achievement for Alfred Hitchcock.  You could have a switched list of awards, with the default option to just wikilink whatever goes into award1.  I could probably cook something up if you think it would be a good idea, rather than twenty different award parameters. <b style="color:forestgreen;">Happy</b>‑<b style="color:darkorange;">melon</b> 14:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I think something went wrong-- User:Music2611 CT 17:25, April 11, 2008 (EST)
 * Indeed. I've included a fix for this problem in my edit request below. PC78 (talk) 16:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Removal of the exclusive awards fields
Exclusive awards fields don't seem to be fair. Some are listed, some are not. Comments? Wi ki pe di an 13:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That depends on wich award fields you want to delete-- User:Music2611 CT 14:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I would quite happily have them all removed. It's entirely subjective whether an award is "important" enough to have it's own section in the infobox. A single generic "Awards" section would be inclusive to all, and prevent periodic requests (like the one above) to have more awards added. PC78 (talk) 12:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it's just fine the way it is currently, in one quick look you can see wich important awards the actor or actress has won, it's usefull.-- User:Music2611 CT 14:25, 29 March, 2008 (UTC)


 * I like it the way it is. It makes things easier to have parameters for the most notable awards; and then there's the catchall generic one to make up the difference. --Melty girl (talk) 19:05, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * But that's the problem, though, isn't it. What exactly are "the most notable awards"? PC78 (talk) 21:00, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't really see this as controversial or "unfair." It's just not that big of a deal. The Oscars are more notable than a minor film festival's awards; but even then, if someone wants to, they can put that award in. If they couldn't, then maybe it would be a problem, but they can; and the whole thing is hidden by default. I just don't see the pressing need to dismantle a perfectly fine part of the infobox, which has now been incorporated in so many articles. I don't see the periodic requests as a problem, because they're rarely disputed. --Melty girl (talk) 21:07, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * As long as requests for new awards aren't disputed, then that's fine (though see the request above). To remove any subjectivity, all awards should be treated equally. But obviously having 50 or more awards parameters would make the infobox a little unwieldy, hence my suggestion above to condense it into a single parameter. Personally I don't think we should have awards in the infobox at all (something I have discussed at length before) because it is something better dealt with in the article body, but that seems to be a minority opinion. The problem is that the current selection is somewhat arbitrary and exclusive; for actors in some countries, these awards simply aren't relevant. Do we really need more variant templates like Infobox Chinese actor and singer? PC78 (talk) 21:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I think Melty girl is right, I do agree with you on the "we have a lot of templates that are ridiculous" part, but still, the template is just fine the way it is.-- User:Music2611 CT 17:29, 31 March, 2008 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.191.41.117 (talk)

Recommend placeholder picture?
Should it recommend a or  or  image placeholder? It'd make an infobox with few values look like less of a stub and it might encourage uploading. (feel free to edit this comment to change pics to links)--Goldfndr (talk) 21:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm all for it; it sounds like a great idea and I'm surprised nobody thought of it earlier. Many of these templates with no pictures have those images anyway. Daniel99091 (talk) 06:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC).
 * The problem is it doesn't know if the article is 'bout a man or woman. Wi ki pe di an  13:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Then use the neutral image. I like this idea. Garion96 (talk) 15:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Dunno. Frankly I think these things are horrible. I'd rather see them used sparingly (if at all) than have them everywhere. PC78 (talk) 20:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It makes the article looks low standard, IMO. Wi ki pe di an  13:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I also think that they look ghastly. They don't add anything to the page. I have yet to see any evidence that they bring any pictures to the pages. In fact, considering the overwhelming restrictions that are now placed on images coming into Wikipedia, it is unlikely that many actor articles will ever have anything but these ugly placeholders in the infobox. They look better without them. MarnetteD | Talk 12:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * See Category:Reviewed images of people replacing placeholders. And a lot of of those images have already been moved to commons. (so they are not in that category anymore). I would prefer another placeholder though, it does not look that nice, but they do help. Garion96 (talk) 15:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I also concur that image placeholders within the infobox does degrade the overall appearance of the article. ---pete 23:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Personally, I think it actually encourages people to upload their images. Sure, 99% of the times they may be people uploading their favorite image found in a Google search, but I hope the last 1% would be actually free images correctly licensed for us. If it helps us making us freer, I am all for it. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 04:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * WP will be full of non-free images. Wi ki pe di an  13:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I prefer something like this. With the caption set to to a link for uploading --pete 10:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

To one and all Please Note a centralized discussion about this topic has begun here Centralized discussion/Image placeholders. While I will add a link there to our discussion you may want to add your thoughts on this new page. MarnetteD | Talk 03:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Metadata
Hi. Please add after the template doc call at the end of the template code, so the template's metadata is included. (It's now at /metadata as the documentation is also included on the /sandbox page.) Thanks. Sardanaphalus (talk) 12:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Something seems wrong here. It looks like you metadata page was created on Template:Infobox Actor/metadata instead of Template:Infobox actor/metadata --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Arrg, I'm used to infobox template names following the standard-looking format of "Infobox" followed by a sentence-cased topic name. Have thus created a redirect to turn the link above blue. Why is this template named "Infobox actor" anyway? The article about actors isn't called "actor", it's "Actor", i.e. sentence-cased per the Manual of Style. Hence "Infobox Actor" -- or, if an "Infobox" namespace existed, "Infobox:Actor". Sardanaphalus (talk) 15:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * ❌ so much more elegant. <b style="color:forestgreen;">Happy</b>‑<b style="color:darkorange;">melon</b> 17:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Website parameter
Why does the "website" parameter show up like this? It's ugly. Could someone fix it so it just says "Official website" in plain hyperlinked text?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 03:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The documentation says the following: Insert the actor's official website. Use only the link such as http://www.example.com/ . Do not use syntax such as . Have you tried it without brackets? --Goldfndr (talk) 03:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Heh,sorry about that. Missed the obvious.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 04:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Bug fixes for the awards section
To keep this post short and simple, take the code from User:PC78/Sandbox3. The changes this makes to the current template can be seen here. This essentially does three things: PC78 (talk) 20:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Corrects a few minor bugs that prevent some awards from displaying properly.
 * 2) Links directly to each awards article rather than to a redirect.
 * 3) Removes the intricate template, which is already transcluded on the doc; it doesn't need to be displayed twice.


 * Much Better-- User:Music2611 CT 22:01, 12 April 2008 (EST)


 * Not done. Your code fixes some bugs, but if I read it right it also introduces some new bugs. This is tricky stuff.
 * "naacpimageawards" inserted in a weird way. Check that one.
 * #ed8 -> &amp;#35;ed8 - I think that breaks the colour code.
 * "screenactorsguildawards" -> "screenactorguildsawards" - Why? The Wikipedia page is named Screen Actors Guild Awards and so states the official web site too.
 * But thanks for a very clear editprotected request! Best one I've seen in a long time. But I of course removed the extra as you asked.
 * --David Göthberg (talk) 01:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * To address your concerns:
 * Good catch. Try it now.
 * No, it's like that everywhere else in the code. Check the current revision of the template. It's very obviosly broken in that section.
 * It's a typo. The parameter name is written elsewhere in the code (twice) as "screenactorguildsawards".
 * PC78 (talk)


 * ✅ Done. Haha, you got me there. I should have checked closer. All updated. I took the liberty of adding some whitespace the way I usually do it in the noinclude sections, for readability. Sad that the parameter "screenactorguildsawards" is misspelled from the beginning so you are stuck with it. Ah well, I see the doc has deprecated it and now uses "sagawards" instead. --David Göthberg (talk) 02:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Cheers! PC78 (talk) 02:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Removal of years active
Comments? Wi ki pe di an 04:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * "Comments?" Um, let's see... don't remove it? It's a fine parameter, and is the kind of concise, informative statistic that an infobox can present better than the prose can. I don't see a rationale for removing it. --Melty girl (talk) 04:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It's present on the actors / actresses' credits section. Wi ki pe di an  08:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * everything in the infobox also appears elsewhere in the article, except the photograph. That's the main feature of infoboxes.  Every single other detail is duplicated, so to say it's redundant, while true, could apply equally to every field.      I originally suggested this field/parameter.   My intention was that it would achieve two things - place the person within a particular era in film history, and also give an indication of the duration of the career.   Part of the "snapshot" of the person, and in my opinion, a quite relevant part.   It's used for musicians, so it wasn't that I got the idea myself, but I saw it being used reasonably effectively there, and I figured it could work here also.   I don't think it's one of the most important fields, but I don't see any  reason to remove it.   If you have other reasons, by all means put them forward.    Rossrs (talk) 11:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You do realize that if we keep removing stuff there will nothing left! ;) PC78 (talk) 14:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Merging with Template:Infobox actor voice
The short discussion above seems to have consensed that Template:Infobox actor voice should be merged into Template:Infobox actor. Can I just go ahead and do a redirect, then, or is something else necessary for a merge? All Hallow&#39;s Wraith (talk) 05:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No, it needs more than just a redirect. Sorry, I've kind of let this slip to the back of my mind. I'll try and come up with the necessary code changes over the weekend. PC78 (talk) 13:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * If/when this occurs, please take the opportunity to correct the template's name. Other infoboxes use "Infobox" + Sentenced-case topic (per Manual of Style), i.e. in this case "Infobox Actor" and "Infobox Actor (voice)" -- where "voice" is in brackets as it's a disambiguator (also Manual of Style). Thanks. Sardanaphalus (talk) 16:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

IMDB Link?
I can't change the template because it is protected, however, could we add an IMDB link such as the Film infobox has? --Sc straker (talk) 19:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * My inclination is to say that we don't need it in the infobox as it will be redundant. Virtually every actor page has it as an external link - and for those that don't it can be added quite easily. My other objection is that it will get lost in the awards info. I mean do we but it before or after the awards won section. This awards won section overwhelms some infoboxes and makes it hard to read anything else. However, this is one editors opinion. If the consensus is to add them that is okay too. MarnetteD | Talk 20:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * See for previous discussion here. Garion96 (talk) 22:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback. My request was so that it could be consistent with film that's all.  But if we don't inlcude it (for reasons stated in previous discussion), shouldn't it also be removed from the film infobox for the same reasons/consensus? --Sc straker (talk) 00:54, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * For the same reasons... yes, I think so. But I believe that the consensus here can't stand in for a consensus over there -- I think you'd have to propose it at that template's talk page. --<b style="color:#7E2217;">Melty</b> <b style="color:#C35817;">girl</b> 03:02, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

spouse order
What order are we supposed to list spouses? I noticed that the Suzanne Pleshette article lists them first to last, while her last husband's article, Tom Poston, lists them last to first. Is there a standard/convention? --rogerd (talk) 19:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Good point. I would think that, given the example of WP:MOSLOW, although it's not quite the same thing, that they should be first to last. --<b style="color:#7E2217;">Melty</b> <b style="color:#C35817;">girl</b> 22:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Children and Relatives and Parents
Anyone interested in the two fields that are in the standard person infobox? We have children= and relatives= and parents=, so that you can link to related people that have wikipedia biographies. That way you can link to say Michael Douglas and Kirk Douglas from the infobox. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, but that way one can also list hundreds and thousands of non-notable children, parents, etc., which is why this was deleted originally. All Hallow&#39;s Wraith (talk) 21:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Alma mater and sibling parameters
editprotect Could someone add these two parameters? Template:Infobox person has those, and there is no point not having them here. -- Taku (talk) 11:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * There has been quite a bit of previous discussion about the addition of siblings, children etc and there have been a number of comments opposing the addition of the field citing relevance as one factor, specifically with the addition of non-notable siblings/children etc.  As for the Alma Mater - I also feel that it is not relevant to the summary of an actor's biography to know where they were educated.  My opinion is that the infobox should contain only the most basic, relevant details, and anything else should be discussed in the article.  I think saying there is "no point not having them here" is not a very strong argument for inclusion, so I'd be interested to hear something to explain why you think it's necessary, and how it would benefit the infobox, and the many thousands of articles that use it.   Rossrs (talk) 11:36, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * There needs to be a clear consensus for adding those two, see also the discussion archives .Therefore I removed the request for now. Me personally, I would rather like to see these parameters gone from Template:Infobox person than to add them to this infobox. Garion96 (talk) 11:53, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't know the addition could be a contentious matter (and also was unaware of the past discussion.) Anyway, here is the reason for the inclusion of those. I agree that on many (or most?) occasions the alma mater and sibling may not be interesting pieces of information. However, I know of some actors who are primarily known because they are graduates of a top university (i.e., Tokyo University in the case of Japanese actors) or because they are brothers or sisters of famous actors or actresses (or maybe politicians or could be anything). I thought the sister of Britney Spears was famous because she is related to the famous singer. I still think it makes sense to allow for those particular cases. -- Taku (talk) 08:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't understand how an actor could be "primarily known because they are graduates of a top university".  Shouldn't an actor be primarily known for acting?   I'm very unclear what you mean.    Jamie Lynn Spears has a career independently of her more famous sister, and that's what satisfies the notability requirements for her to have an article.  Whether or not she'd have a career without Britney is another story.   Like Garion says in the previous message, I'd rather see the parameters gone from Template:Infobox person too.  I think the infobox should be for just the basics, and that the article body is where all the details should go.    Rossrs (talk) 11:36, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Merger with Template:Infobox actor voice
Both templates have been tagged for a merge for some time now. As there has been no opposition to such a merge, we should be able to proceed.

This requires edits throughout this template, so to keep it simple take the code from User:PC78/Sandbox3. The changes this makes to the current template can be seen here. All it does is add a number of duplicate parameter names which are used by Infobox actor voice (eg "URL" instaed of "website"). This will allow the other template to be redirected here, thus completing the merge.

Can we also use this opportunity to move the template to Infobox Actor (as requested above), per WP:IBX. Many thanks. PC78 (talk) 04:06, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Yes check.svg|20px]] Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:50, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Except you didn't check for double redirects through Infobox actor... Powers T 13:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Rewrite of parameter explanations in the template doc.
I've done a minor rewrite of the template documentation, specifically of the parameter explanations. I haven't really changed anything, just (hopefully) clarified a few points, and added notes about non-free images and flag icons along with links to the relevant policies and guidelines. PC78 (talk) 23:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Wrap "Domestic parther(s)"
Since the template is protected, I cannot edit it. Can someone who can, please force a wrap of the"Domestic partner(s)" label? the label is longer than the other labels and the result look strange in e.g. Michel Baron. The code is currently
 * Domestic partner(s)

and I think that
 * Domestic partner(s)

will look better in almos all cases. Thanks. -Arch dude (talk) 18:39, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't see any real need for this. It's only going to force an extra line in the infobox where one isn't necessary. PC78 (talk) 18:58, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The would seem to be unnecessary. The template on the main page shows the word domestic and the word partner(s) to be on two different lines not on one long one. When I added it to Simon Callow's page earlier today it also shows on two lines with the persons name being on the same lin as the word domestic. MarnetteD | Talk 19:55, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

infobox error
Does anyone know why the infobox states the part in the Nicholas Colasanto? Nothing seems to be wrong in the article or this template. Garion96 (talk) 13:26, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I've seen this before, but I have no idea what the cause is. I took that line out in the above article, then retyped it and saved. Technically that shouldn't have made the slightest bit of difference, but it's gone now (at least for me it has). Weird. PC78 (talk) 14:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Official website
Is there, or should there be direction as to whether the official website should be duplicated in "External links" if already in the infobox? —  pd_THOR  undefined | 16:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * No reason why it shouldn't be. All other infobox details should be duplicated in the article anyway. PC78 (talk) 12:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Nationality
Apologies if this has been discussed previously or elsewhere, but why is there no nationality= parameter here, as in Infobox Person?
 * Oops, it appears it has been discussed and rejected. Moondyne 15:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Subpages
There seems to be some redundant subpages As I understand it, a template needs only one sandbox and one testcase page. See Template test cases. Does the Infobox Actor documentation page really need its own sandbox? Please consider keeping Template:Infobox Actor/sandbox, creating Template:Infobox Actor/testcases (if needed) and deleting sandbox templates 2-4 above. Thanks. -- Suntag (talk) 16:13, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Template:Infobox Actor/sandbox
 * 2) Template:Infobox Actor/Sandbox
 * 3) Template:Infobox Actor/sandbox/doc
 * 4) Template:Infobox Actor/sandbox/testcases

BFJA Awards
could anyone admin please add BFJA Awards in incert list.Jayanta Nath 11:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC)Jayanta (Talk)

Official website formatting
I find it extremely unhelpful to have every actors infobox identically state that they have an "Official website" requiring readers, who we're writing for, to either click on it or otherwise work to see what's hidden there. It would be more beneficial to actually list what their website is in the infobox. This is key information and should be plainly displayed. Somewhere along the way we've forced infoboxes to using this strange suppression of detail. This seems a good faith effort to somehow clean, prevent or standardize but instead it's impeding users from easily accessing information. Any ideas on changing this? --  <u style="text-decoration:none;font-family: papyrus;color:#CC00CC">Banj e <u style="font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   02:31, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Resting place (+ coordinates)
I propose to restore the "resting place" and corresponding coordinate parameters. They were removed after a brief discussion last February. These parameters are present in infobox person (consistency with which is desirable); and are only intended to be used where the person's grave (or whatever) is of significance; which some clearly are. They can be omitted on articles where they are not wanted/ available. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose. It simply isn't important enough for inclusion here; I don't think we should be adding things to the infobox when they will only benefit a tiny minority of articles at best. Consistency is irelevant, IMHO, as the two infoboxes are seperate. PC78 (talk) 06:46, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I can't think of an example where the resting place is so significant that it must be placed in the infobox, when it could as easily be described in the article.   Also it then comes down to individual editors arguing the importance of their particular pet article.  I think it's unnecessary. Rossrs (talk) 07:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

←(reply to both) It's my understanding that the general consensus is that biographical infoboxes should repeat the generic fields form infobox person, and merely add the genre-specific fields such as those for actors. Adding coordinates to the infobox allows the person('s grave) to be located on mapping tools; and categories of such people (whether "German Actors" or "people buried at Cemetery X") to be mapped as a set. This is useful functionality for our readers, at little cost and no harm. It also means that the articles are added to Google Earth/ Google Maps. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not familiar with such a concensus (link?), and I stand by what I said both above and in the previous discussion. I don't regard the location of a person's grave to be important enough to warrant inclusion in the infobox, and that goes for Infobox Person as well. Geographical coordinates are fine for geographical articles, but IMO they don't really have a place in biographical articles – it's just indroducing more infobox clutter. For the handfull of articles where such information is useful, then the coordinates can simply be added to the article text. PC78 (talk) 15:26, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose, they should actually be removed from Template:Infobox Person. See PC78's arguments right above. Garion96 (talk) 16:16, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

IMDB in Infobox (see also Template_talk:Infobox_Film discussion )
Please add IMDB as a link field in the Infobox. See Template_talk:Infobox_Film in which it is argued that IMDB is an allowed link field in Infoboxes. Erpbridge (talk) 15:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * To clarify, there was no clear consensus to remove the external links from the film infoboxes, so they were kept by default. I am not sure if this is an indication to push for IMDb in Infobox Actor since the lack of consensus means that there has to be an consensus drive for inclusion in this particular template. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 16:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Has been discussed quite a few times here. Every time consensus seems to be against it. Garion96 (talk) 16:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: To agree with Erik that the discussion at Infobox Film has not reached any kind of consensus, and, indeed, looks to be heading (once again) towards no consensus. Thus, whatever the merits may be of adding IMDB to the Actor Infobox, it is not supported by the other discussion. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 18:08, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Support the suggestion. IMDB is the most comprehensive source on movies available and linking it with relevant WP infoboxis would take better advantage of the synergy of internet by helping researches, the readers of WP to verify and cross reference the related facts.--Termer (talk) 16:47, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Actors' IMDb pages are already linked in the articles' "External links" sections, so I think that readers are already familiar with the website. Is there a good reason why do we need to repeat the link in the infobox?  It seems like repeating the link outside of familiar territory (the "External links" section) is poor structure, favoring IMDb over other useful links. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 19:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The two infoboxes are entirely seperate, and concensus has already been well and truly established against adding it here. IMDb is in no way a reliable source for biographical information about actors and filmmakers, nor is it "comprehensive" in this regard. PC78 (talk) 22:54, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You can certain oppose for whatever reason you like, but can you provide a citation which provides some factual evidence concerning IMDB's lack of reliability (rather than anecdotal evidence or personal sense about the site, I mean)? The problem being that I have not experienced it as being unreliable, and yet that claim is thrown around fairly regularly here.  I'd like to see some hard evidence.  Ed Fitzgerald t / c 01:19, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't really need to; it is for those who would wish to include it here to justify doing so, particuarly if they wish to overturn a standing concensus. Do please take a look at this, though. PC78 (talk) 01:34, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the previous consensus was based on an emotional argument, and not on fact? But that's neither here nor there, this is an issue that's seperate from the question of whether IMDB should go into the Actor infobox (an issue I could go either way on).  I really want to know if there's a factual basis for the claim or not.  I'll take a look at Erik's subpage in a moment, but if you've got something that you'd rather not post here, drop it on my talk page.  Ed Fitzgerald t / c 01:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, three or four anecdotal reports of errors on IMDB establishes nothing, even if they are completely true. I absolutely guarantee you that I can pick up any issue of any major newspapers - the New York Times, the Washington Post, the LA Times, the London Times, anything - and given enough time and money, I will find you at least a half-dozen factual errors, and yet these are clearly reliable sources.  If someone wants to make the claim that the main listings at IMDB are riddled with errors, then someone has to actually look at the site and make a study.  It doesn't have to be definitive, for our purposes it can be suggestive, but simply finding a mistake here and there doesn't do it. I also have no proof for my feeling that IMDB is pretty darn reliable, but it stems from years of comparing IMDb listings to actual movies and not finding a slew of problems.  That's more than I can say for watching 5 minutes of Fox News, for instance.  In the absence of anything more authoritative, I have to sck with my own assessment of IMDb, which I think is shared by most people outside of the Wikipedia film community. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 01:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If you're interested, try googling IMDb with some choice words such as "unreliable" or "incorrect"; most of it will be blogs and forums, but if nothing else it might demonstrate to you that this is not merely the opinion of a handfull of Wikipedia editors. If you want some Wikipedia-based reasons why IMDb is not considered a reliable source, try digging through the archives of Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources. Reasons include, but are not limited to, the fact that information is user submitted and IMDb does not provide sources for any of its content. PC78 (talk) 02:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * As opposed to a newspaper, which lists every source, right? As opposed to Wikipedia, where the information is user-written? As I said, I'm not looking for anecdotes and hyperbole, I want some hard facts. Does anyone have any? Ed Fitzgerald t / c 03:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does not regard itself as a reliable source for similar reasons; see Reliable source examples. The accuarcy of IMDb's content is really neither here nor there; it is the nature of the site itself which precludes it from being regarded as a "reliable source" for the purposes of Wikipedia. Why so intent on seeing "hard facts" when there are seemingly none to support your own opinion of IMDb? PC78 (talk) 10:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I've already conceded that I have nothing firm to back up my impression of IMDB, but I'm not the one actively making a verifiable claim: that IMDB is not a reliable source. Someone makes a claim such as that, after IMDB's long history of acceptance on Wikipedia, and its clear status as the site of first resort for film information, then they oughta have some kind of proof, don't you think? Also, about the nature of IMDB: it is not, like Wikipedia, a site where the information is primarily contributed by the readers of the site.  That information was collected and edited by somebody (I don't know who), and the site was then )at some point) opened for readers to add or delete information.  Those changes do not appear immediately, but take time -- from several days to several weeks -- before they appear on the site, implying either a very inefficient staff or a process of vetting.  It is wrong to think of IMDB as being Wikipedia-like, and being unreliable because of that. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 03:30, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I won't have this debate with you ad infinitum; I've given you plenty in my comments above, which you are of course free to dispute, refute, or ignore, but don't keep badgering me for more. :) I see no evidence whatsoever of "IMDB's long history of acceptance on Wikipedia"; what I do see are a majority of people saying pretty much the same as myself. I have on occasion submitted information to IMDb myself, so I know what it's all about. Information can be submitted by anyone, citations are not required and indeed not provided on the website, and the "vetting process", if indeed it exists, is not transparent nor do we know the credentials of those doing the fact checking. Sure, it's a useful website, but it doesn't meet the required standards of a reliable source. PC78 (talk) 20:04, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Gee whiz, if you don't want the discussion to go on ad infinitum, then don't respond to 3 day old comments, just let it lie. But since you have: you've presented zero evidence that IMDB is not reliable, and until I see some, I consider it to be as reliable as a newspaper (which is to say, intermittently reliable, depending on circumstances).  These things can't be determined by fiat. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 20:06, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I've given you plenty to consider above, but if you're just going to ignore it then there's no point in continuing this discussion. Feel free to go and ask the question over at WT:RS, and lets see how you get on. Where is the "long history of acceptance" of which you speak, or may I presume that you have "nothing firm" to back that up, either? PC78 (talk) 20:32, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you're right that this conversation is fairly unproductive at this point. (I've left you a note on your talk page). Ed Fitzgerald t / c 20:56, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - my reasons are somewhat different. I think that for filmographies and for a lot of the general information IMDb is pretty reliable. The biographical information and trivia is dubious, because it is provided by individual contributors, but the same can be said of Wikipedia. My feeling is that any external link appearing in the infobox is placing undue importance and perhaps preferential treatment on that site. (Official sites excluded). IMDb is the most comprehensive and probably the most widely used such resource, but then what about IBDb or TCM etc? If we allow one external site to be linked, in the spirit of NPOV we should allow all because each of these sites offers something different that is potentially useful and valuable. The link is used, along with other relevant links, in the external links. I have no problem at all with it being there, but the only real "benefit" I can see in putting it into the infobox is to save people scrolling. This has been given as a reason in other discussions, and I don't think it's good enough. If someone could explain how its benefit would outweigh what I perceive to be its drawbacks, I'd be interested, but in previous discussions it's mainly been either "because it does no harm" or "because film articles do it" or "because it saves scrolling". I don't see any of these as being particularly strong reasons. Rossrs (talk) 03:46, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Spouse(s)
Does anyone else think that this field should really just be "Spouse"? It seems silly to include everyone someone has married in that person's infobox. There are more lines, for example, in Joan Collins' infobox about her husbands than there are about her!

I'd like to see this field's definition changed so that it's only for someone's current spouse. Valrith (talk) 15:26, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Disagree. We're an encyclopedia, not a newspaper: we chronicle someone's history not their current status. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 19:45, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Chronicling history is all well and good, but that doesn't mean it all needs to be in the infobox... Valrith (talk) 02:16, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It's basic information, that's what the infobox is for. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 02:28, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to agree with Ed here. I don't see why a person's previous spouse(s) should be regarded as being less important, particuarly when many such marriages are well known and documented. PC78 (talk) 15:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposal for fixing image padding around image
I realize this is very nit-picky of me to notice, but the top header on the infobox is 1px wider than the image beneath it (when the image stretches across the whole box) and the space between the header and the image is different than the space between the header and the top and sides of the box. I propose changing the CSS style on the image to decrease the padding on the left and the right by 1px each and adding 2px to the top to make the spacing equal.

The change I'm proposing is for the fifth line (without line-wrapping) of the code, to change this:

| colspan="2" style="text-align:center; font-size:100%;"

to this:

| colspan="2" style="padding: 0px; padding-top: 2px; text-align:center; font-size:100%;"

The changes can be seen at my user subpage User:Mr. Absurd/Infobox Actor proposal. Any comments and/or criticisms are welcome! (By the way, if there are similar templates that should also have this change implemented, please let me know or somehow coordinate it so they can all be changed.) Thanks! Mr. Absurd (talk) 05:21, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * ✅ —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 11:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Independent Spirit Award
I propose to add a parameter for Independent Spirit Awards - comments? —EqualRights (talk) 13:46, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

drama desk awards
request addition of Drama Desk Awards to infobox "wards won" section. --emerson7 17:45, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Please propose / provide code. Thanks! --MZMcBride (talk) 19:55, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * thank you for your attention. i've included proposed coding below. --emerson7 21:51, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

In line 47, following, please insert:

please insert the following code at line 88 between the coding for Cesar Awards and Emmy Awards


 * ✅ Please, update documentation. By the way, your code contained an error. Ruslik (talk) 19:53, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Classical music is deleting infoboxes from articles under their control
Several people from musical Wikiprojects are systematically deleting infoboxes from biographies that are covered by their projects: Here is an example at: Milton Adolphus
 * "Rmv infobox as these are not used for classical musicians per WikiProject Classical music)
 * "Rmv infobox as these are not used for composers, per WikiProject Composers section) "

The discussion is here at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style. As best as I can sum up the argument is that: classical composers as creative people can't be defined by the simple labels used in musical infoboxes, and as creative people transcend the traditional people infobox which can't capture the essence of what makes them an artist. And of course, some people are just philosophically opposed to any infoboxes, no matter what information they contain. 10:04, 1 December 2008 Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (Talk | contribs)
 * WikiProjects don't own the articles included in their projects. If there's crossover with other projects that use Infoboxes, it's legit to re-add them. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 08:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Do you feel strongly enough to revert the deletion yourself? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 08:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmm. This topic is being shopped around. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) has also referred it - in new topics, either entitled "Individual wikiprojects are deleting infoboxes form articles" or "WikiProject Classical music is deleting infoboxes from articles under their control", to:


 * Template talk:Infobox Person
 * Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)
 * Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography
 * Template talk:Infobox Musical artist


 * -- Klein zach  09:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Consistency in infobox captions
(also posted to Template talk:Infobox actor)

A couple of editors and myself have been discussing the inconsistency in regards to the captions for infobox images. Some examples - the captions beneath the photos of:


 * Eric Bana and Diane Keaton give their names and date.
 * Preity Zinta has the caption "Preity Zinta at the Jaan-E-Mann and UFO tie-up party (2006)."
 * Miranda Otto - "Otto at Ring*Con 2006 in Fulda, Germany".
 * Sharon Tate - "from Valley of the Dolls (1967)",
 * Anna May Wong - "Passport-style photograph required for U.S. Department of Labor in 1935" and
 * Jenna Jameson - no caption at all.

I have intentionally given examples from featured articles, as they have been subjected to more scrutiny than most, and have passed even though there is no consistent format. Does this indicate that maybe a consistent format isn't desired? On the other hand, has this been discussed before, and if not, is it an oversight?

There are obviously several variations being used and no particular standard being used throughout Wikipedia's actor infobox captions - some give name/context/date some just context/date. My opinion is that using the name is redundant. If the image is in the infobox of a particular article, both of which are titled with the name of the person, and there's only one person in the photo, I think it's pretty clear that the picture is of that person, and to state the fact is redundant. I think the location and/or context is important and so is the date. I read Preity Zinta (as an example) from the top of the infobox as "Preity Zinta - photograph - Preity Zinta at the Jaan-E-Mann and UFO tie-up party (2006)," and wonder why "Preity Zinta" appears twice in the same area. I would prefer it as "Preity Zinta - photograph - at the Jaan-E-Mann and UFO tie-up party (2006).   Any comments?   Thanks Rossrs (talk) 08:08, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Variety is good. Actually I don't think any of your examples give particularly useful information, apart from the Sharon Tate one that identifies the film. In general I'd rather see no caption - who cares what comic convention the photo was taken at, really, as long as the image page has that information. I certainly don't think we need a guideline for this - such instruction creep is to be despised. Flowerparty ☀ 13:36, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that some caption suggestions may be helpful and disagree that no caption is better. Lede images in infoboxes should clarify, if, for instance, we are seeing an actor in character, as well as when the image is taken. Someone can look vastly different if they recover from an illness or radically alter their look. Sometimes the only image we have is decades old. -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:#FF0066">b oi   03:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Why is the actual website URL hidden?
Spawned by a small edit-war on John Inman, I have to agree that hiding useful information feels like a bad idea. Worse, it promotes hack-arounds such as what's being tried on the page mentioned (so whatever consistency is intended is instead leading to inconsistent alternatives!). A quick spot-check of other infoboxes finds no consistency on how to pass the website= value or how to display it: some take full URL, others just the site (i.e., no "http://"); some display the URL, others give a generic name for the link. DMacks (talk) 02:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's take this to the manual of style and get this nonsense resolved on all infoboxes rather than one by one. Most infoboxes, from what I've seen don't do this but the ones that do seem to be a forced decision so if nothing else we should see what consensus is. I'll work up something and link here. -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:#FF0066">b oi   03:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. Discussion is at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. I have no idea where the ultimate language should go but I'd like to stop the madness sooner than later. Any insight appreciated. -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:#FF0066">b oi   04:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I've posted a comment at the discussion linked above, but I'm not sure what the problem is at John Inman. If the website is official, then having the link formatted as "Official website" should not be a problem. If it's not an official website, then the link shouldn't be there. PC78 (talk) 12:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * There's a couple of issues. One is hiding the actual website itself and the other is adding "Official website" - is that really needed if "website" is pretty clear. -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:#FF0066">b oi   13:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Still don't see the issue here. The website is not "hidden"; one does not need to see the URL to click on it. "Official website" is quite specific; the parameter is not intended for anything else. PC78 (talk) 16:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * One should not have to click on the link to verify what it is; if we force "Official website" we mask and hide the actual web address. There is no need to do this as we strive for transparency. We may be misreading each other here. I'm saying that the actual web address, in almost all cases, should be displayed rather than "Official website" which states only that a website exists but fails to divulge what that address is without the user having to take additional steps. Simply no reason to tease a reader on this. -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:#FF0066">b oi   16:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, I don't want to have this same discussion in two different places! :) I'll post another comment at the MOS arther than continuing here. PC78 (talk) 16:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Woody Allen
I'm no expert on infoboxes, so I'm asking this here. Woody Allen has an infobox with many filled-in fields, but most don't appear. It looks like some fields are not in the template, but others, like domesticpartner, are in the template. Any idea of what's going wrong and how to fix it?  Will Beback   talk    00:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The fields were probably in this template at one point but have since been removed for one reason or another. You can remove them from the article if you want as they don't do anything anymore, but nothing is broken. PC78 (talk) 01:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposal for new Awards sub-category: Comedy awards
Comedy Awards (or even Australian Comedy Awards) My pet project is Living Australian Comedians, so this would be a very useful sub-category for me, to cover the variety of Australian comedy awards awarded by different Australian bodies/groups. --Tyranny Sue (talk) 04:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Microformat upgrade- no visual impact to template
editprotected
 * Visual impact: None
 * What it does: This change allows wikipedia to emit event microformat metadata, as do other infoboxes such as these.  The change should have no visual impact and introduces non functional classes to elements of the table.  These classes are recognized by external microformat parsers to retrieve information in the cells.


 * Requested changes:
 * 1) class="infobox vcard" → class="infobox vcard vevent"
 * 2) class="fn" → class="fn summary"


 * Background: This allows events of the individuals life to be represented such as the span of their life, from birth to death date.  Currently the template supports hCard format which does not describe events.  Further information on what this does and how to see some of the benefits may be found here.

Thanks -J JMesserly (talk) 21:26, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅. Martinmsgj 08:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. -J JMesserly (talk) 16:08, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The hCard microformat - which was already in this template - adequately represents birth dates. The change does not allow "events of the individuals life to be represented", as claimed above, but represents the whole life as a single event. People's lives are not single events; and so this edit is unnecessary and harmful. Please reverse it; as has recently been done to Infobox Person and other biographical infoboxes. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:04, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 23:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Aloma Wright
Hi, there seems to be some kind of error in the case of Aloma Wright, the infoxbox starts with "" below the picture. Could anyone please fix it? Cheers --Siggiminator (talk) 11:53, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Garion96 (talk) 14:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

BFJA removal
Someone has requested the addition of BFJA awards and it was added subsequently. But I strongly think it shouldn't have been. I know this function and respect it of course, but it is merely a journalists association (or a critics association), which cannot stand as an award ceremony on its own as the other awards mentioned, thus should not have its own field.

NYFCC Awards, NSFC Awards, BFCA Awards etc., are very similar organisations in the US. If BFJA is not removed, it means that all these critics association awards will have to be added too (more so when the ones mentioned are more famous).

So I ask you to remove it. Like the awards I mentioned above, it will be used in the infobox, but in the "other awards" field. There shouldn't be any problem with that. Thanks, Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  17:52, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, I'll deal with it. Hesperian 22:29, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Interwiki
Hi! you should change the interwiki es:Plantilla:actor -> es:Plantilla:Ficha de actor. Thanks! Mutari (talk) 18:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Done, Garion96 (talk) 22:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Infobox Actor change proposal
Three updates and changes proposals to this template have been made at WP:ACTOR. Any comments are welcome. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * As a result of a poll open from March 25 through April 1, the consensus was to remove the awards portion of the infobox actor template. Results can be found here. Could an adminstrator please remove template parameters starting from "academyawards" down to the bottom of the template itself as well as the instructions. Thank you. Wildhartlivie (talk)
 * Aargh, couldn't you have decided that a couple days earlier, before I added a MISC field to Infobox person and built awd frame just to be able to add the stupid raspberry awards to Paris Hilton's infobox? ;) Oh well, it's done anyway, and I'll remove the awards from her infobox, too, to be consistent. Cheers, Amalthea  15:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * LOL. Sorry about that. It was the stupid raspberry awards that was the impetus for the change. That was just the straw, although everyone agreed that the awards were beginning to overwhelm the purpose of the infobox and were extremely redundant. Sooooo, why didn't someone just change the Hilton infobox to infobox actor? :) Thanks much. Wildhartlivie (talk) 15:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That's actually what happened, but I wasn't happy with that. Infobox person has a number of fields that Infobox actor is missing, and Paris Hilton really isn't mainly known as an actress. Cheers, Amalthea  16:14, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Redundant to Infobox Person?
Given that this template only has one parameter that is not included in Infobox person, could it not be merged into that template? Skomorokh 00:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I hope it never happens and I strongly oppose the suggestion. Infobox person has fields that we have discussed here at length and have decided not to use, and others that would be highly inappropriate and unnecessary.  If it was merged we'd see actor articles filled with such irrelevant information as "height", "weight",  "alma mater", "call sign" (what the?) .... right down to "(place) body discovered", among others.  I think it would be highly detrimental to the thousands of actor articles that use this relatively concise and specifically tailored template, especially given that a lot of actor articles, particularly those for current actors, attract an inordinate amount of trivia, speculation and nonsense.   Rossrs (talk) 00:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't mind it if Infobox person gets rid of all the crap parameters there. :) Garion96 (talk) 00:56, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * That's not a terribly strong argument for maintaining a separate template. Why not propose that the parameters in question be deprecated? Skomorokh  01:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the Infobox Actor template is fine, so my attitude is "why try to fix something that isn't broken?"  I do think I've given a more than reasonable argument based on how things currently exist, and the infobox person template would need to be highly abbreviated before I would even consider supporting a merge.  Why are you suggesting that I propose that the parameters be deprecated, when you are the one proposing a merge, and I am the one satisfied with the current actor infobox?   Rossrs (talk) 01:13, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * In fact, the person infobox is meant to be both a basic use template for those who don't fall into categories for which there is a specific infobox and depending upon the person, many of the parameters are of use. It also recommends using a more specific infobox when one exists that is appropriate. Because there has been no current decision about other parameters that might be appropriately used in infobox actor, which has been the subject of discussion, does not render it redundant at all. Another point is that the infobox actor has a function which immediately identifies whether the person is living or dead, which isn't present in the generic infobox. The infobox also serves as another means by which an individual is categorized. Merging between 20 and 25 thousand templates is not a very good idea because other parameters have not yet been determined. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:27, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

←If those are the only differences, I would support a merge, with the additional functionality being added to person. Having things "discussed here at length" shouldn't trump reaching wider consensus, either way. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:13, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * And we could infobox person as a metatemplate in the same way it now uses infobox, so we can take off all unwanted parameters. Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 16:18, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Convert to Infobox?
Any thoughts on converting this template to the Infobox meta? There would be no loss of funtionality – everything in this infobox will continue to work as it does now. The benefit would be in simplifying the code and making the template easier to edit in future. I've prepared some code at Template:Infobox actor/sandbox is anyone wants to take a look. PC78 (talk) 23:00, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I know what that means, so forgive me if I ask stupid questions. Would we still use this page and the formatting above? Does it involve conversion of anything? Does this just mean you would use the meta format as the basis for this now? I'm code dumb! Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:17, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * We'll still use Infobox actor just as we do now; the only thing that needs changing is the infobox itself. We'll still be able to do what we want here with this template, but all the stuff we don't need to mess with will be dealt with at Infobox. It's not an essential change by any means, but it's just the way things are going these days. Many infoboxes now use Infobox, for example Infobox Person and Infobox Film. I've added an example using the sandboxed template. PC78 (talk) 23:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If it doesn't involve mass conversions or changes, I am fine with it. (I'm not thrilled with the concept of mass conversions, but I think you already know that!) By the way, that is kind of a creepy photo of Leslie Nielsen, but since he's Canadian, shouldn't it be df=yes? Thanks for explaining. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If the aim is to make editing simpler, I'm all for it.  So, correct me if I'm wrong... in infoboxes using basic dates like April 27, 2009, the date won't appear because it's not using one of the two date templates?  That's fine with me; I'm just wondering.   That's one scary picture of Leslie Nielsen.  If it gives me nightmares, I'll blame you. Rossrs (talk) 07:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem if nothing changes. But if using basic dates means the date won't appear it also will mean that with thousands of articles there will no date showing. That doesn't seem like a good thing. Garion96 (talk) 08:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Dates not appearing? I'm afraid you guys have lost me. PC78 (talk) 10:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * He, I don't know. :) I was just responding to Rossrs. Garion96 (talk) 11:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I was being partially flippant, and I was somewhat distracted by Leslie Nielsen. Of course, dates not appearing is a problem, but on the other it might lead to infoboxes being updated.  I don't see it as a huge stumbling block.   My question about dates not appearing is based on the comment at the bottom of Template:Infobox actor/sandbox that says "Date-of-birth ("bday") information will only be included in the microformat if  or,nowiki>  are used in the infobox."  I've been updating a lot of infoboxes lately, and I've noticed that a reasonable number are still using the basic April 27, 2009, so I assume this means that these won't appear in the infobox as they aren't using one of the templates.  I've been changing them to these templates, but who knows how many articles are still using the "old" format.  Rossrs (talk) 11:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I've always read that the ears and nose never stop growing, Leslie Nielsen just reinforces that point. That note about microformatting and the birth templates is related to something else entirely - namely the debate in which I've been embroiled for the last month regarding that new template someone has created and is determined to foist upon Wikipedia whether there is consensus or not - but I digress. That has to do with data being emitted to programs elsewhere and has nothing to do with the dates appearing in our infoboxes. At present, Rossrs dear, the MOSNUM still recommends using the and  templates and there is no consensus for converting to the templates with the hyphen ( and  . Meanwhile, even the plain linked dating still shows up. The "old" format is still "the" format. Wildhartlivie (talk) 12:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The documentation in the sandbox is the same as the actual template. I believe the comment about dates not appearing refers to microformat data (no idea what that is and I'm not interested enough to look it up). It doesn't mean that dates won't physically appear in the infobox. PC78 (talk) 12:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Right. I don't know coding but I've had enough of a microformatting discussion diet that I can safely say it won't effect whether our dates show up. And no, you don't really want to know. I didn't want to know, and I wish now I didn't. I just noticed Leslie Nielsen's eyebrows don't stop growing either. Wildhartlivie (talk) 12:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I've misread the point at [[Template:Infobox actor/sandbox and saw a problem that wasn't there.  Sorry for completely wasting everyone's time by going off on this tangent.  Also I didn't particularly notice the hyphen in the template, so I wasn't commenting on either template specifically, just templates in general, but as I said I was off on the wrong track.  In my defence, I had just clicked on Leslie's picture to see his eyebrows in full page.  Perhaps it would have been sensible for me to stop posting comments at that point. Rossrs (talk) 13:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

editprotected Please update the template with the code at Template:Infobox actor/sandbox per above discussion. PC78 (talk) 00:31, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Microformat classes are missing: "vcard vevent" I'm sure these can be set. —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 01:44, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That should do it. PC78 (talk) 01:52, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks good; ✅. Let me know if something goes awry and I'll rv. 「ダイノ ガイ 千 ？！」(Dinoguy1000) 06:34, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Bah! Missed something. :) Please add the following line under "captionstyle": |labelstyle  = text-align:left; Cheers! PC78 (talk) 10:43, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:16, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Change to closer resemble Infobox Person?
Anyone agree that the Infobox Person template looks so much more elegant than this template within articles, with its smaller text and less colorization? I think this template would benefit from a simplification to resemble that template. Check out Steve Irwin and Heath Ledger for a quick style comparison.&mdash; `C RAZY `( lN )`S ANE ` 08:10, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well... Steve Irwin uses Infobox Celebrity, not Infobox Person, but I looked at other articles, and the truth is, I see no difference in font size between the three of them. The only colorization that is contained on this infobox is the title bar coloring, which has a purpose and is different depending on whether the person is alive or dead. Each project has its variation on the infobox and I see no benefit to making them all the same. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:36, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The "celebrity" and "person" infoboxes are one in the same. Template:Infobox celebrity redirects to Infobox Person. And if you go into "view source" on both the "Actor" and "Person" infoboxes, you'll see that one has a font size of 95% and the other 90%, so there is a difference.&mdash; `C RAZY `( lN )`S ANE ` 09:01, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * As I said, I see no difference in the font size, on my screen, with my browser, so it's possible this is something effected by personal settings. I'm not sure I see how one could be seeing smaller font on Infobox Person than on Infobox actor, consistently because there is more than one font size setting in each of the infoboxes, and of the three I see, Infobox actor uses smaller font in two of them. The coding isn't very similar either. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:40, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It's all a question of browsers. Infobox actor has font size set to 90%, which on some browsers (Firefox, I think) will look the same as in Infobox Person, wheras for other browsers (IE) it will be larger. I'm ambivalent about making the proposed changes; the smaller font size may be of benefit if it results in less wrapping, but if we make it too much like Infobox Person then the argument for maintaining a seperate template becomes even thinner than it already is. PC78 (talk) 16:58, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Broken
editprotected

Despite a warning to the contrary, in the documentation, this edit removed  and , thereby breaking the template's hCard microformat. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Check this diff in the sandbox. If it meets with your approval, feel free to place an edit request on this page. PC78 (talk) 23:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. That should do it. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 01:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Image size change
Can I ask why the the template changed how images are handled during the Infobox change? Before images were sized to suit the user's account settings; now they seem to loading to a fixed sized unless overriden by the local imagesize value. Frankly I preferred it the old way... Tabercil (talk) 17:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Signature option
Is there any reason why the signature option should not be added to this template? -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 20:05, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * One would be the difficulty in obtaining verifiable examples of the signature. As a long time autograph collector, it is quite difficult to do with a great many persons who fall into this category. Even more difficult is to obtain signatures that would be displayable without the confounds of being on photographs and other types of patterned backgrounds. If we begin to display signatures, there is the problem of asserting authenticity. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:27, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * As Wilhartlivie points out, authenticity is a significant problem, but I also wonder: how, exactly, are our articles improved by having someone's signature in them? Ed Fitzgerald t / c 20:36, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Good points. I guess it is much easier to find signatures of public figures and there is little added value in including them in general. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 21:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Alt text for accessibility
As per WP:ALT there should be a way to specify alt text for the lead image. I've tested the obvious fix for alt-text support in the sandbox, and have tested this with the test cases. Please install this change into the main version. Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 08:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. --- RockMFR 22:09, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Colors
Can not infobox artist have options for colors? --SofieElisBexter (talk) 14:39, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This isn't infobox artist, this is infobox actor. However, I'm completely clueless as to what you are asking if you meant it for actors. Colors for what? Wildhartlivie (talk) 17:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Move
I propose moving this to Infobox actor per WP:CAPS. Any objections? A redirect, which already exists, would allow for both uses. Comments? Thanks. Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 18:08, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't; some people are busy moving infoboxes in the other direction. At the very least, a centralised discussion should be started, first. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:09, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Good idea. Any suggestions where we should have the discussion? On Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (capitalization)? Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 19:53, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, WP:IBX explicitly states that infoboxes should be named according to the naming conventions (design and usage point 5: "Name the template  Template:Infobox some subject  (some subject should be in the singular and capitalized as per normal usage - see WP:NAME)."; it used to say that "some subject" should be capitalized, but I'm not sure when it was changed); I'm not sure, then, if "Infobox" is counted as part of the name for the purpose of resolving the issue. Clarification would definitely be good, though. 「 ダイノ ガイ 千？！ 」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 20:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It changed here in May 2009, referencing this discussion. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * There, or WikiProject Infoboxes, with a pointer at the other. Check it hasn't been debated before, too. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:31, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure why anything needs to be discussed. A move to Infobox actor would be consistant with current naming conventions. I don't see any controversy here. PC78 (talk) 22:49, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The links provided by Andy and Dinoguy were quite helpful. Given the change to the MOS, and the extensive discussion regarding infobox settlement, I could see just being bold and moving it, but I thought I would see if there were any objections. I am also perfectly happy to start a larger discussion on the issue if it hasn't been settled.  Thanks for the feedback. Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk)  23:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I went ahead and moved the page; there didn't seem to be any objections. 「 ダイノ ガイ 千？！ 」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 16:48, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No objection to the move but will this be the final one? So far this template has been moved four times to either Infobox Actor or Infobox actor. :) Garion96 (talk) 17:02, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Awards
How come the awards section is taken away from the template. Mr Hall of England (talk) 13:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I believe the general reasoning is that this sort of thing is better presented in the actual article text. The problem is that so many actors have a very large number of awards, and this can create an excessively long infobox. Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk)  14:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Twitter section
I was thinking with the boom of actors and actresses creating Twitters, what about adding a "Twitter" section with a link to their Twitter? --WTRiker (talk) 00:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem is two fold. One is that it is difficult to tell, when a link would be added to the infobox, whether the account is verified or not. It would be chaotic to try and verify the accuracy of the link. The other is that twitter.com is on the ban list, as far as I know. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:15, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed, no need to add it to the infobox. It's already controversial enough to add it to the WP:EL. Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk)  07:03, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Cause of death; Resting place
editprotected

Please add:

(and renumber subsequent parameters) as used on Infobox person. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:22, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Declined (for now) per previous discussion. Garion96 (talk) 14:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware of that discussion (and had forgotten that some of these parameters had already been here, once); but I object to their removal. Adding coordinates allows the article to be mapped and searched for geographically; it means that the article will appear as a feature in the Wikipedia layers on Google Maps/ Earth and the like. This is a clear benefit to our users. These parameters are used in Infobox person without problem, and while I can see (if not necessarily agree with) the reasons for having a separate template to allow for extra, specific, parameters relevant only to actors, I don't see the need to remove the more generic properties which work well elsewhere. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:02, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't have a problem with death_cause, and IIRC it hasn't been used here previously. I'm less keen on resting_place since I would expect notable resting places to be the exception rather than the rule. I do object to having coordinates in the infobox, simply because I don't feel they belong in a biographical infobox. If a resting place is truly notable then it should be mentioned in the body of an article, and coordinates (if necessary) would be better placed there, IMHO. PC78 (talk) 16:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That something is the exception rather than the rule shouldn't matter; all of these parameters are optional. Placing coordinates inside the infobox includes them in the emitted hCard microformat, BTW. That serves our users by giving them better metadata to play with; and indicates that the coordinates relate to the location of the subject of the box (and hence the article) rather than being a random point (sometimes one of many) mentioned in passing. But the key point remains - there is no good reason for this (or any such) infobox to behave differently to the generic parent, where non-specific parameters are concerned. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Redundancy with Infobox Person (if that's what you're getting at) is not the issue here. Regarding coordinates, the subject of the infobox should be the same as the subject of the article, so I don't see how having the coordinates at "a random point mentioned in passing" rather than the infobox would fail to have the same effect; if I'm missing something here then you'll have to explain it better. Regardless, the purpose of an infobox is to summarise salient points relating to the subject, and IMO resting place coordinates in this context do not fit that criteria. PC78 (talk) 17:11, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No, that's not what I'm getting at here, at all (though see section above). I meant coordinates of (not at) "a random point mentioned in passing". Some articles (including some biographies) have multiple sets of coordinates in the text (for example, "there are memorial statues at X, Y and Z"). It's my view that a notable person's final resting place is a salient point about them; indeed, there are whole books and websites dedicated to the subject; and people whose spare time is given over to finding, visiting and photographing them. I'd be ready to compromise with the coordinates at the foot of the infobox, if that would satisfy. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 17:30, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I'm being dense here, but I still don't see why an infobox is necessary to generate the required metadata. Can you point me to one or two articles where resting place coordinates are actively being used in Infobox Person? PC78 (talk) 17:47, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

← No worries:


 * Alfred Nobel Infobox Person
 * Pablo Picasso (Infobox actor)
 * Abraham Lincoln (Infobox officeholder)

The HTML table which forms the infobox on the page is the container for the hCard microformat; anything eligible within that is included, anything outside it, not. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:46, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * To look at one example. I don't see the need of the coordinates in the Abraham Lincoln article. You see coordinates on top of the page but have no idea what they link too. Only when you perhaps read the infobox you know what they are for. Plus it really is not that an important location. More important (still not necessary) would be the coordinates of the Soldiers' National Cemetery in Gettysburg or the Ford's theatre in DC. Garion96 (talk) 18:47, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Such points of interest could certainly be included in the article, in line; but the main coordinates (those in the infobox, repeated on the top line of the page) represent the location of the subject of the article - that's standard across Wikipedia, and understood by our partners such as Google - and in this case, that's where Lincoln is, unless anyone has evidence of grave robbing or the supernatural ;-) Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:03, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Gee, we're crossing the line into the metaphysical now. Is he there, or just some bones? :) FWIW, grave robbing was a factor re: Lincoln. That's where he reportedly is buried. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:39, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * One indeed never knows. :) The exact location of a building I see as important, the exact location of a person (deceased or alive) I don't think is important enough for inclusion in a infobox. Garion96 (talk) 20:41, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I certainly wouldn't advocate geotagging live people. They're far too likely to move. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * That's actually worse than I was expecting. Resting place coordinates within the infobox in their proper context is one thing, but to have them out of context at the top corner of the page is IMHO a bad idea. I'd be genuinely surprised if others haven't objected to this before elsewhere. That said I'd certainly be willing to settle on a compromise if it can be implemented in a far less obtrusive manner. Just thinking out loud, how feasible would it be for other templates to emit hCard microformats, persondata for example? PC78 (talk) 21:33, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The coordinates are switchable, to display inline (that is, in the infobox in this case), in the title bar, or both, but for the reason I've outlined, it's good to have them in the titlebar. Bear in mind that happens a lot (hundreds of thousands of times, literally) already on Wikipedia articles, and people are used to seeing it (and it's where our users look for them). {tl|persondata}} can't emit hCard, but every biographical and every applicable geographical Infobox I've found now does (except one or two very minor ones which are esoterically coded) as do some Navboxes (it's a long, slow process to convert them) and a handful of stub templates. I have 'editprotected' requests outstanding, to make it easier in the latter two types, but they're being blocked by a handful of people who don't see the advantage, even though there are no visible changes. Hey ho. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:48, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you clarify something for me: what is the advantage in displaying coordinates in the titlebar as opposed to just the infobox? Titlebar coordinates certainly aren't something I have issue with in geographical articles, but I don't find them at all appropriate for biographical articles. As Garion said above, it isn't at all obvious what they are for. PC78 (talk) 22:39, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Infoboxes can have more than one set of coordinates; there can be only one in the titlebar position, and that defines a single location for the (subject of) article, as recognised, for example, by Google Maps. Earth. As I said, it also provides a consistent place where our users can look for coordinates. Again, there are hundreds of thousands of these already. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:00, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think there are are hundreds of thousands of biography articles with coordinates in the titlebar, either way it should be changed quickly. It is obvious for buildings and events what the coordinates link to, not for biography articles. Garion96 (talk) 23:05, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That's not what I said. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) OK, I understand. I'm still willing to compromise on coordinates within the infobox, but I can't support the inclusion of titlebar coordinates in biographical articles. I would doubt that there are already "hundreds of thousands" of these already, but even if there were a million that still wouldn't make it a good idea. PC78 (talk) 23:11, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The answer in that case would be to make the above-requested change, but only enter coordinates with the display set to "inline" (or not set at all - "inline" being the default in Coord). That will at least include them in the microformat, and have them clearly labelled as to their meaning, but not associate them with the subject at page level. I think that's a loss, but clearly I'm in a minority in this case. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I've been following this and considering the discussion and in the end, I have to agree with Garion96. I can't see how knowing the possible geographic coordinates of a gravesite enhances the biography. Besides it being noted by the words "resting place", in most cases, the gravesite is the least notable thing in an article, while unspecified coordinates don't tell us anything of note - where they were born? where they lived? where something was done? where something trivial happened? Beyond that, as a frequent Google Earth user, it's become so cluttered with inane content that I have turned off the Wikipedia layer because there are frequently simply too many posts on it. When one gets to the Forest Lawn Cemetery, for example, if this is included, the cemetery is obscured from all the notes from Wikipedia. There are certainly salient and notable points in Wikipedia that are well suited for Google Maps and Google Earth, but gravesites of the stars seems overkill to me. We're talking about the potential of eventually over 30,000 actors popping up and that is excessive. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:45, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Redundant class
| bodyclass = infobox vcard The class "infobox" is redundant as it is already defined in infobox. Please remove it. Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 01:23, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. — RockMFR 03:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Clarification
edit protected Please clarify instructions for "Spouse" and "Domestic partner" to include "Multiple partners should be listed in chronological order, beginning with the earliest." Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:38, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The template documentation isn't protected. ;) PC78 (talk) 22:46, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Welllllll, I don't piddle with these templates very often, I forgot this page wasn't the source page. I guess I always thought this was intuitively obvious, but apparently I was wrong. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:19, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Civil Partnerships
editprotected I think with the change in the law to allow Civil Partnerships between same-sex couples, this infobox should be updated so that it distinguishes between Civil Partners and Domestic Partners. The infobox should have the option of spouse, civil partner or domestic partner.--NeilEvans (talk) 18:37, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


 * A change in the law where? In the UK? Would it not be appropriate to refer to civil partners as spouses? Disabling edit request pending further discussion and input from others. PC78 (talk) 20:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, civil partnerships would qualify as marriages for all intents and purposes. Portia de Rossi is listed as a spouse to Ellen Degeneres and George Takei is listed as a spouse to Brad Altman. It's difficult enough keeping random editors from listing a dating situation where couples do not live together as "domestic partners" without further having to clarify it. It's the same thing as marriage. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:25, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * A civil partnership is in no way "the same as" nor do they "qualify as" marriage: marriage is a life-long covenant, enacted by the exchanging of vows and optionally rings, "until death us do part"; civil partnerships -- on the other hand -- are legal contracts, brought into effect by signing contracts and ended similarly. 89.240.114.222 (talk) 22:06, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * We aren't speaking of definitions, we're speaking of where and how such a relationship is listed in an infobox. It's far too problematic to add such a line. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:23, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Agency/Agent section
How bout adding a parameter for an actor's agency/agent? NorthernThunder (talk) 14:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Umm... no. For one, how is it encyclopedic? Something like IMDB Pro having this as a field I can understand, but Wikipedia?? Also how would the average editor be able to confirm or deny a given entry is right? And remember, IMDB Pro is a paysite... Tabercil (talk) 01:11, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Umm... ok NorthernThunder (talk) 06:28, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

What about children?
Somebody's added that parameter in the Billie Piper article but it's not showing up in the box. If the spouse is included, why not the children? Gnostrat (talk) 02:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I would suppose that is because the children, as named individuals, are rarely notable? Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 04:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * And if they are underage, then there might be some BLP and privacy issues. —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 11:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * In what way? The kid is mentioned in the main text and his name is public knowledge. Being born into the Fox acting 'dynasty', it could hardly be otherwise. Couldn't the parameter be an available option, to be applied as deemed appropriate on a case by case basis? Gnostrat (talk) 07:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * In this case perhaps, but not there are more cases than just your specific example. The problem with infoboxes is that people have the tendency to "fill them up", wether that is appropriate or not. You should never think about specific cases with infoboxes. You should always consider the full set of articles these infoboxes are included upon. —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 21:19, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * See here for the discussion that led to the removal of this parameter. Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 15:22, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Jeez, what a can of worms. Thanks, Plastikspork, I get it now. Kind of. Gnostrat (talk) 18:14, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

merge Template:Infobox_Indian_actor here
It's the same as the actor infobox. The only significant difference is that it has the awards that were removed from this template back in April 2009. --Enric Naval (talk) 07:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

See Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_February_15 --Enric Naval (talk) 07:13, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Support merging. Even better, just delete/redirect since there are no transclusions. Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 00:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Parameter addition
Would it be possible to add the parameter "needs-filmography=" with the yes/no response generating a category that editors can access in order to create filmographies on those articles lacking one. Someone proposed this somewhere at some point but apparently it didn't happen. This would be a huge boost to helping editors fill out articles. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 12:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: before using the editprotected template, please could you:

Thank you &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:27, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Discuss the issue on the talk page.
 * 2) Place your proposed code on the templates's /sandbox.
 * 3) Fully test the code (perhaps by making use of /testcases).
 * 4) Obtain consensus for the change.

use of "domestic partner"
We should err on the side of caution with this term as I think it implies cohabitation. Not all unmarried couples live together. Also, some famous people may take offense if their listing here uses the term, especially if they oppose cohabitation. We don't want them suing us. Unless there is a reliable source saying they do live together, I think another term should be used. --T1980 (talk) 04:22, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Notable works section
For directors, having a notable works section is important because that's what they are known for. Every other artist infobox has a section for notable works, and because the films are the director's art (not to mention the actor's art), there should be a section to list 2-3 notable works which are representative of their works. Garion96 apparently refuses to allow this as he reverted my addition without any discussion at all, so I'm bringing it here. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:04, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well...I could say the same thing: you added the parameter to a high profile template without any discussion at all. This parameter was in the template for a while but was removed. See the archives. Personally I don't like this addition. Only means we will end up with huge lists in infoboxes. Plus who decides what is notable or not? Garion96 (talk) 00:14, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The same people who decide everything here: the editors. For any established director, there are always 2-3 works which stand out above the rest of their works, so it should generally not be hard to figure out which ones to place there. I actually think combining directors and actors into one infobox is a bad idea, and I think a separate infobox should be created for directors (as most of them are not actors). ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:27, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * And the editors decided a long time ago that notable works is a subjective addition that is largely populated through the subjective opinions of passing editors. It's speculative and POV. I agree with Garion96. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:12, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * And your opinions, as with every opinion here, is subjective regarding this. Everything on Wikipedia is done at the whim of passing editors, but we still trust them to come up with NPOV articles (and it happens most of the time). It's likely "the editors" you mention who "decided a long time ago" are actually only about 10-20 editors or so, so that's not going to be a really objective consensus there. Most directors have articles written about them outside of Wikipedia which talk about their representative works, and list off the cream of the crop (so to speak). This is something which can be sourced, and therefore can be less subjective. ··· 日本穣 ? ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:47, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Use all of the subjective semantics that you want. This field caused endless edit wars and, in several cases caused the infobox to be longer than the article. Consensus was reached (and it looks like it has been again) that we do not wish to use this field. Thanks for your input though. MarnetteD | Talk 17:32, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If you can call the opinions of three people "consensus". This is hardly consensus, but rather three people pushing their POV and refusing to even entertain the possibility this might work if handled properly. That's the reason I included "2-3 notable works" in the documentation. Anything more than that can be removed. However, it appears no one here is even interested in actually discussing this issue as your minds have already been made up. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:17, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Children
Why are we still missing a children field for actors? Every other biographical template has one except this. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:07, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It's been brought up before. See Template talk:Infobox actor/Archive 5 and Template_talk:Infobox actor/Archive 6 for the two most recent discussions that I know of... Tabercil (talk) 17:32, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes where the removal was agreed to by three people. I don't think three editors agreeing and deleting makes a consensus among editors. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:57, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The discussion was not just 3 editors, the final discussion had 3, but fancy that, it's often that way on consensus discussions. It doesn't negate it, though. Beyond that, the children generally fall under the definition of non-notable people. That has been covered elsewhere. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:16, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Just because the children may or may not be notable means they should not be included in the infobox? Notability of the children is a criterion for articles for the children. The fact that an actor or actress has children IS notable, especially if the names of the children already appear in the article. The point of the infobox is to give a quick glimps on the actor, not to pass judgment on the notability of the actor's children. However whatever (talk) 04:15, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * And that is fine for sourced inclusion in a personal life section. It is no justification to include in the infobox, if it doesn't invade privacy concerns. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:17, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Tabercil (talk) 12:38, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You lost me. Template:Infobox person has a children field. What would be the reason to NOT have a children field in this template? However whatever (talk) 16:08, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Other Name parameter
There isn't much of a description for the "other name" parameter: Insert any other name(s) that the person has been known by.  I understand the use for actors who may be known by more than one name (alternative professional name, maiden name, alternate spellings, etc.). Does this also include nicknames? I bring this up because of Hilarie Burton, where "H-Bomb" is listed in the other name section. (A quick google search does show the nickname listed on sites such as IMDb, tv.com, fanpop, poptower, TV rage, etc. Not exactly the best sources, but it is used.) It doesn't seem appropriate, but I am not well-versed in this parameter. I guess I can understand the use of the parameter for a commonly known nickname for a major actor, but I cannot think of one at this time. Can anyone clarify? Thanks. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 13:15, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is intended for any old name, but more for situations where the person has worked professionally under a different name, such as Farrah Fawcett, who at one time worked as Farrah Fawcett-Majors, or Roseanne Barr, who just went by Roseanne for a while. Nicknames don't seem to be notable to include, and those would probably qualify as as aliases. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:50, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Upload form
The image to upload a photo is saying "click here", but the link is just pointing to the placeholder image page.

I suggest pointing to upload form with possibly a name of current page prefilled, e.g. File:.jpg - this will help people upload images right away. --Sergey Chernyshev (talk) 18:07, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * There isn't a way to upload images in infoboxes. They need to be uploaded separately. At the left side of your page, there is a link that says "Toolbox". If you click there, you will see a link that says "Upload file". Clicking that takes you to Upload, where images can be uploaded. Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:46, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

"Years active"
Hi. Could the "Years active" words be put on a single line, please? They look odd spaced as far apart as they currently are on two lines. Thanks. 212.84.121.75 (talk) 02:02, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It is on one line. It wraps because of the date spread. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant could it be made unwrappable. In shorter examples I've seen of this infobox, it's the only line that wraps and so looks odd in the way I described. 212.84.121.75 (talk) 22:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That can be dealt with by coding it in the infobox with a nowrap template. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:41, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Height and Weight
I put the template: "Height" and "Weight" because I found it relevant to put this kind of information. --Gustavo1997 (talk) 18:18, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Have you considered Infobox person? Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 18:40, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I see that you are a new editor so you may not know this but changes to an infobox need to first be raised here on the discussion page and then consensus needs to be reached to include them. These items have two immediate problems. First, they will need to be sourced to WP:RS and that is not going to be easy. Second, while height can be a fairly stable number weight is not (re: Kirstie Alley - no disrespect intended as she has joked about it herself) a persons weight often changes as they age so who is going to track the changes in this and keep them up to date. Other problems that I can foresee include edit wars over the weight section, next how notable is this info and lastly I think that there may have been a previous removal of these fields although I am not 100% sure about that. Other editors may remember and correct me if needed. One last thing you may want to post a message at the filmprojects talk page about this proposed change to get more feedback. MarnetteD | Talk 18:41, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I realize that on occasion height is notable but usually only in the case of tall actors like Vincent Price and Fred Gwynne where their height became part of the reason where they were cast in certain roles. That can be mentioned in the body of the article rather than the infobox. Must dash the Champions League game is starting. MarnetteD | Talk 18:47, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * "changes to an infobox need to first be raised here on the discussion page". No, they do not. Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:04, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem here is that they documentation was being updated before the template had been updated, and the template was not being updated because it is fully-protected. So, in this case, it is the correct procedure to raise the point here and then see if there is consensus. However, you are correct that this is not generally the case. Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk)  19:10, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * We had an edit conflict; I was just adding "although non-admins do need to request edits, to protected templates such as this". Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:15, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, height and weight are such nebulous factoids that it would be very difficult to find accurate and reliable sources to support such content. Unless it is a very notable subject, such as in the case of Kirstie Alley, who has incorporated her weight issues into her work, it is not something that is generally found in any sources and would be quite dubious in any event. Unless an actor's height is a notable part of his or her work, it isn't notable for inclusion in the article. In any case, if either of these personal characteristics are notable and directly related in some way to the actor's work, it is trivia and not particularly content of note. There is really no good reason to add this to the infobox and I am squarely against including it. It is something that does need to be discussed before just adding it, since it is something quite controversial. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:42, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Expose URL
Please change:

to:

to make the URL visible and permit the use of Urlw. Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:09, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * There are a couple problems with what you have suggested. (1) Why are you bolding the URL? (2) Once you do this, many (if not most) of the transclusions are going to have stretched infoboxes, since the URLs will not be wrapped.  I am not objecting to the idea of changing the format, I just think that we can't do this without some preprocessing of all the translusions first. Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk)  21:37, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I would suggestion the following: (1) Create a new field which allows for a pre-wrapped URL, and have a bot covert all transclusions, (2) Repurpose either URL, website, or homepage to take a pre-wrapped URL, but first make sure that it is not in use, then have a bot convert all transclusions, or (3) have the URL automatically formatted the way that you are asking using a solution at the template level (e.g., what I suggested at Template talk:Url). Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk)  21:40, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

The emboldening is already there; I wouldn't be bothered if we removed it. Would the existing URL values really stretch infoboxes? Perhaps we should just change to:

once the proposed changes to Url have been implemented? Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:58, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * On second thought, I have no objection to unwrapping the URL, but we should use

and let editors fix them if they are too wide. Without the header or the label, the bare url doesn't have any context. However, I think this should be fine. Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 00:59, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * header8   =
 * data9    =
 * I guess my question is why does the url need to be exposed? In most cases, you'll find that a personal website is also listed in the external links. It seems to me that if it stretches the infobox or editors have to fix it themselves, it's asking more than is gained. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:31, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think it will be a big issue. This is the format used by other infoboxes, like Infobox model for example.  I'm sure Andy can explain the rationale, but it has something to do with not hiding the basic URL details behind a generic "click here" type link.  In other words, something like http://www.example.com is fine, example.com is better, and official website is not so good. If you want something more seemless, we could always use something like {{ifurl||{{official|}}}|{{{website}}}}}}, which would use a test to see if it is a bare URL and then wrap it if necessary.  Once some like this is in place, a bot could covert them all to the more desirable URL format.  Again, I will let someone else explain why official isn't good for infoboxes.  Thanks! Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk)  05:53, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Infoboxes are for key information. A notable person or organisation's URL is key information about that entity, and so should be visible to the reader. Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:00, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to your suggested data row; but do we need the header, or is a displayed URL self-explanatory? Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:00, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it is helpful and appears to be the norm in other infoboxes to either have a "label" or a "header" next to the URL, if the URL is not otherwise labeled. It agree that it should be suppressed if the  is being called, since the label would then be redundant. How about something like the following as the transitional code? I may have to debug it. Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk)  17:13, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

<pre style="overflow:auto">