Template talk:Infobox play/Archive 1

Start
This info box for plays was modelled after the Film Infobox. After working on the Category:Ancient Greek plays, I decided an info box would be best for things like the list of characters. I'm open to any suggestions for additions or changes. We could add things like the date written, the list of full text links, etc. I'm only going to add this box to the ancient Greek plays for now. However, anyone would like to use this for other plays, or make this into a larger project, feel free. -Ravenous 05:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Additions
I think there should be a section for date of premiere, country or origin, language of origin, series, subject and genre. What do others think? Remember 20:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay I've added it. Feel free to revise it. Remember 20:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Those additions sound great, thanks for adding them. - Ravenous 20:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Why are there two settings? and what's mute? just wondering --Goodface87 17:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * There isn't two subjects (i removed the extra one in the list above). Also, mute is for non speaking characters.  That's usually what they were listed under in the books of plays I've got. - Ravenous 20:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Can there be a "basis" field for plays that are based on source material?--Cassmus 09:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC) I am currently testing this Infobox for a prototype theatre stub on a musical, and I ran into scale problems, viz. insufficient room to properly spell out the Author (theatre), Soundtrack Composer, and Scorer under "Written By." Recommend adjusting the fields for widths similar to those in Template:Infobox musical artist and similar music-related Infoboxes. - B.C.Schmerker 03:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Can we also add a production section like in the musical box for new productions on Broadway of new plays along with an awards section? Thanks, guys. LiamFitzpatrick (talk) 07:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Problems

 * The functions of "caption", "series" and "subject" seem not to be working for the new article I'm working on - A Very Merry Unauthorized Children's Scientology Pageant ... Smee 06:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC).
 * I agree. I apologize that I cannot understand template syntax all that well myself, but if the creator of the template or anyone else would like to help out with this, I'd appreciate it. How is the "subject" line meant to be used? LordAmeth 17:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Image size
I was having problems with an image that was less than 200px wide and was stretching to fit, resulting in a blurred image. I went back to the Infobox film template and lemmed that solution. Note that the parameter name is "image_size", the underscore must be used between the two words. &mdash; Chidom   talk   09:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Are Info Boxes mandatory?
(this question is being brought over from the Village Pump - for that discussion see ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smatprt (talk • contribs)

See also discussions at "Hamlet" here. AndyJones 18:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I see that info boxes can be helpful in many situations. However, in some cases, I find them redundant and too much like "lists". I am concerned that we are turning some articles from important encyclopedia entries into USA TODAY stories with these little boxes that make it easier to avoid actually learning about the subject, as opposed to simply getting a few quick facts. In the case of Shakespeare's plays, for example, I think they can create more problems than they solve. As to the regular information fields - we don't know when Shakespeare's plays were written, where they were first performed, what exactly the sources were, who was in them or what the original critical response was. We even argue now over what was a comedy and what was a tradgedy. Also, listing all or many of the characters opens further debates, and attempting to list every setting (which can be quite a few and many are not clear) is impossible. I also feel that the over use of these boxes gives a feeling of dumbing down of an article - sort of like using cliff notes to write a report instead of reading the whole article. In fact, for the most part, all the information in these boxes is typically found in the first paragraph or two of the article itself. Isn't this redundant? Are not these just more lists that duplicate the information in the articles? Are these boxes mandatory for all plays?

For example - For Hamlet - all we really can say would be: Hamlet, written in England...in English. Set in Denmark (all of which is in the first paragraph of the article). Then we can have a list of characters that already has its own section very closeby (and listed in the table of contents for an easy jump right to the full cast). Isn't this redundance at its worst?Smatprt 03:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I also think we could add when the play was written or when it premiered and where, when it stopped playing (if it did), and who originally directed or produced it (for later plays) and perhaps a link to the actual text of the play. While this information would be able to people elsewhere in the article, I think the inforbox provides a nice format for the primary bits of information.  The infobox can also be used to incorporate metadata easily. Remember 19:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Your quesitons illustrate my point nicely - regarding Hamlet - we don't know when the play was written; we don't know when it premiered; we don't know when it stopped playing, and we don't know who originally directed of produced it. The same applies to each and every play by Shakespeare. Do you see the problem now?Smatprt 05:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know if the box really needs to be manditory for every play, but it's been useful for some. I created it for the ancient greek plays, and it seems to be a good fit with those.  Also, the parameters for it are merely options.  Like the box itself, the paramters are there if you want them, if not - you don't need to include all of them.  I believe I only used a few, as like you said, a lot are unknown for these old plays.


 * Whether information is displayed like "usa today" or an "important encyclopedia" is really just a value judgement on what - class? aesthetics? From the articles I've worked on, often people where putting lists of charaters within the text itself. From a design perspective, I believe a simple list is better served in something like an infobox than interrupting the flow of text within the article.  If it's a matter of class, I think usabilty trumps class when it comes to relaying information.   And I agree with Remember that infoboxes make the article more usable by putting the metadata in an easy to find location.  Often, users are only there for that particular info and would prefer not to spend time searching it out within the text.


 * I disagree with the premise that boxes "make it easier to avoid actually learning about the subject". One could use a similiar arguement for an encyclopedia article itself. Such as, why read the play when you could just read the summary on wikipedia?  Everyone has their own limits of how far they are going to delve into a topic, it all depends on their time and inclination.  If all they want to know is the most basic facts about something, why not make it a little easier for them? Does it really get in the way of the users who are there to read the whole article? - Ravenous 06:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that the inclusion of an infobox should be up to the author of the article - I've written many many articles (not plays, but in general) which simply don't bear the kinds of information which are necessary to fill out an infobox. Some of the plays I may be writing about in the near future are ones for which no script remains, and some of which were even shut down by gov't censorship before ever being performed. Point is, sometimes it simply doesn't serve to try to fill out an infobox, if the questions the box is asking aren't relevant to what you have available, or to the main thrust of the importance/interest of the play.


 * On the other hand, to respond to the comment that infoboxes duplicate information in the text. Yes, they do. But more often than not, I find that my prose sounds a bit strange, perhaps a bit choppy and forced as I try to incorporate all that information into the introduction. Laying it out in the box can be quite helpful, and allows you to get all that basic data out of the way, so the main text can focus on the meat of the issue. (Plot summaries, performance history, whatever). LordAmeth 09:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Voting section
This section is not meant to be binding but instead is designed to better gauge people's opinions on the template.

Against infobox plays
I am against all infoboxes for play articles.


 * 1) Against.  Note that none of the FA-class theatre articles have them.  They are wholly repetitive, they limit the size of the initial image, they get in the way of formatting images in the lead section, and all of the relevant information should be set forth clearly in the WP:LEAD and in the body of the article itself.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:28, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

For infoboxes on all play articles
I am for infoboxes on each play article.
 * 1) Support - Remember 13:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Allow each article to adopt a consensus on its own talk page
I am for each article making a decision about whether to add an infobox or not.

Keep open and free editing
Sorry to create a new section, but my opinion really doesn't fall into any of your three categories there. I do not support the idea that consensus should be created among a certain cabal of editors on each separate play article page, as (a) this goes against the open, free nature of the Wiki, where editors can come and go and make changes as they wish, and (b) it encourages a lack of standards and consistency. I think that every major play (Shakespeare, Broadway classics, Gilbert & Sullivan, Chikamatsu, the Greek classics, etc.), those which are most well-known, most influential, most expansive in their coverage, should have infoboxes, as it completes out the article, and supplies to-the-point information which may be buried in larger, longer articles. On the other hand, I am not voting "for infoboxes on all play articles" as this ignores the situations which can come up - each individual editor (not by cabal consensus, but individually) as they work on an article, or more especially when they create a new article, should be allowed to decide for themselves if an infobox is a good idea. I don't believe that this should be left up to the personal whims of the editors - some commented above that they just don't like the way it looks or whatever - but if an infobox would be genuinely inappropriate, irrelevant in a given situation, editors should feel free to leave it out.

Outside of play articles, there have been countless times that I've found that for whatever subject I'm working on, the associated infobox just doesn't apply to what I'm doing, and in those cases, omission of an infobox is more than justified. Sometimes, there simply isn't enough information in a given editor's sources (or known to scholarship in general) to satisfactorily fill out an infobox. In these cases, and more or less only in these situations, do I believe that omission of an infobox is called for. Sorry for the long message. Thanks for reading. LordAmeth 15:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Support. After reading LordAmeth's comments above, I agree with his general comments (except the Shakespeare reference where, I believe scholars don't know enough factual details to make the box useful). In general, there are far too many attempts to control the articles on Wikipedia. Cabal consensus is a huge problem on the William Shakespeare page (and related pages) in particular.  Check out the talk sections there for what may be a perfect example about what LordAmeth describes. Smatprt 19:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. I support letting the authors of the article decide, however I do think the infobox should be useful on plenty of play articles. Even if it only includes something as simple as a picture, writer, date (estimated if need be), and some principle characters. For that reason, I wouldn't be against using them on Shakespeare plays if I were editing those. There is even less known about the Ancient Greek plays than those of Shakespeare, and I believe I put the box on most all of them.   - Ravenous 20:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

This is all well and good, but it doesn't solve anything. We're right back to where we were before the whole debate started. Free editing is great, but sometimes, people just don't agree. Sometimes a consensus can't be reached. I don't particularly know how to solve this at all, but, right now, I feel like we're just running around in circles. I agree with the free editing thing, but, again, it is kind of redundant and solves nothing. Basically, some people want an infobox on shakespeare pages, and others don't. Both sides have strong feelings, and there is no consensus. There is no way to verify the statements made by either side, and thus both sides are based mostly on opinion. There isn't a "right" answer. Both sides just need to settle and give a little, recognizing that they are based on their own feelings. (In this little blurb here, I'm referring mostly to the discussions on the Hamlet page.) The answer, I guess, then, is free editing, as well as compromise between editors. Wrad 03:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Fixed errors
There were a number of errors in this template which I think I have corrected, including: I'm mentioning this here in case anyone was previously put off from using the template because of these errors. GDallimore (Talk) 11:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Excess lines above the template (not quite sure HOW I fixed that one, might be to do with either of the following)
 * 2) "Series" and "Subject" should now work properly - I changed something in "Caption" as well (removing a dash and correcting a | usage), although I don't know what the actual effect of that change was.
 * 3) Line break should not appear if there is no web page, playbill, etc
 * PS I came across this template when creating Four Nights in Knaresborough which could do with a second person going over it. Thanks! GDallimore (Talk) 12:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

some sections still don't appear
The list of characters doesn't show up in the finished infobox. Help? Fixed it -- someone had altered the code in the template.... Aristophanes68 (talk) 02:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

yikes
Aside from whether info boxes should be used, why have "country of Origin" when place of (postumous, in the case of Woyzeck) premiere is meant? Date and place of writing are missing, as is duration, a consideration when looking to fill double bills... Sparafucil (talk) 23:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree: especially with the need to distinguish date of writing from date of premiere, at least when the two are substantially different.... Aristophanes68 (talk) 14:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Error
Please see the page for Alibi (play). The words "insertformulahere" are appearing in the info box between "written" and "by". Any ideas why?--Jtomlin1uk (talk) 14:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * In addition the words"Headline text" are appearing as a section heading, even when there is no section heading!--Jtomlin1uk (talk) 14:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

iobdb - lortel Internet off-broadway database
requesting inclusion of a direct link in infobox to the lortel archives for off-broadway shows using the below coding:

--emerson7 16:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * data15 =
 * ✅ Happy‑melon 14:00, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Add hCalendar microformat
Please also add the hCalendar microformat, as on Infobox Film. This will involve adding class="vevent" to the whole template, (I can't see where as the two templates are not the same); plus class="summary" around the name; and class="description" around the "Written by" table-row. See the edits to the film template for details. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 21:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Happy‑melon 14:00, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The exact same changes as in the film template edit (nbsp notwithstanding). Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 14:05, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Except that this template uses a meta-template, there is no parameter called director and the name field is formatted, which IIRC you've said somewhere else is a problem. Please have a play around in a sandbox and read the documentation for, work out what code will achieve the effect you want (given that I have no idea how this microcard system works) and come back here with the exact change you want me or someone else to make. We all have our areas of expertise: while template code is one of mine, microcards are not, and it appears to be one of yours :D.  On that note, many thanks for the helpful requests you've made all over the template namespace today; it looks like you've improved the accessibility of thousands of articles by applying your knowledge where it counts.  Happy‑melon 14:14, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

[outdent]

OK, I see what you mean, sorry.

Firstly,  needs to apply to the whole table. I don't know how that would be achieved.

Then, if that has been done, change:

to:

lastly, the table row:

Can have ; again, I don't know how to achieve that in this type of template, but it's only an optional property.

Thank you for your kind words; you can find out more about microformats (not "microcards" - though that's a neat portmanteau!), including hCard (an HTML representation of vCard), on those pages; and at the microformats project page. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 14:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok thanks, I think that that should work correctly... Happy‑melon 16:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Nearly there, but  seems to be wrapped around the right-hand TD, not the TR. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 16:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Doesn't seem possible with the infrastructure that's present, unfortunately. Can it be done with spans? <b style="color:forestgreen;">Happy</b>‑<b style="color:darkorange;">melon</b> 14:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * No; you can't run a span across multiple table cells in valid HTML. I've already raised the issue on the relevant talk page. Thanks, anyway. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 14:44, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

IBDB
editprotected

The URL listed for linking to the IBDB (The Internet Broadway Database) for the Arsenic and Old Lace (Play) article is incorrect and takes the reader to an incorrect location. To correct this link, I request that the string "show" in the link be replaced by the string "production"

Alternatively, the URL may be changed to "1692" as the last four digits to link to the IBDB entry for both the original production and the 1986 revival.

Thank you.

- Wikipedia User   jfduncan John F. Duncan, theatre director and educator
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done:I have fixed the link at Arsenic and Old Lace (play), as changing the template would break other instances of the template. Regards,--Aervanath talks like a <b style="color:green;">mover</b>, but not a shaker 18:52, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Adding a 'movement' section
Hello, I would like to request that a section be added for 'Movement', underneath 'Genre'. This is because many plays cannot easily be classified as specific genres, but are allied with particular movements in theatre. Examples are Waiting for Godot, which is unrelated to conventional genres but is part of the Theatre of the Absurd movement. If someone could make this change it would enhance the infobox's value. Downstage right (talk) 15:20, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * <Rattles bars> Downstage right (talk) 23:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

setting
the play takes place in the 1990s, not 1969. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.225.144.11 (talk) 20:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * What are you talking about? Downstage right (talk) 01:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Sidebar Setting Error: 1997, not 1969
The setting is incorrectly listed as 1969. It is actually set in 1997 according to the published play text, written by August Wilson. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.22.28.4 (talk) 02:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * This is the talk page for all infoboxes on all plays, not just the one you're bothered about. Nobody knows what play you're referring to. Go to the article you're worried about, click the box marked 'edit this page' at the top, and make the change. Downstage right (talk) 23:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposed removal of "view • talk • edit" links
I propose that we removed the "view", "talk", and "edit" links from the bottom of this template. I've never seen this on an infobox before, and it seems rather silly to include them, as this template doesn't directly relate to the articles that it's used in. (You can see this problem in the two sections above this, in which editors mistakenly thought this template applied only to the specific article it appeared in). Mr. Absurd (talk) 23:53, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * As you can see from the further mistakes below, this really needs to be done. Downstage right (talk) 12:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I just added an editprotected, as my earlier comments seem to not have been noticed by any admins. Hopefully this issue can be resolved soon. Mr. Absurd (talk) 02:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I was trying to make the edit but for the life of me I can't figure out what in the template is causing the display. Maybe it's the "body class"? Well anyway, You'll have to wait for someone better at template coding than I unless you can spoonfeed me what to change.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It comes from Template:Infobox, which this uses. That template adds the view/talk/edit links if you pass a "name".  I did add a "noedit" flag so that the edit link is gone but the talk link remains.  If this is an issue, maybe take it up at Template talk:Infobox? Oren0 (talk) 07:45, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Weird. When I went to Category:Infobox templates and clicked on a bunch at random, not one had the links so I discounted that. Thanks for the information.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)