Template talk:Infobox scientist/Archive 2

Added "author abbreviation" fields
I added a couple of fields to the template, Botanical author abbreviation and Zoological author abbreviation, each based on the Template:Botanist. These fields are extremely important for articles about taxonomists. I put in a botanist and zoologist field separately, since they are treated under two different codes of nomenclature and in a few cases, taxonomists have two separate abbreviations as a result.

The fields add the text: "Botanical author abbreviation – The standard author abbreviation   may be used to indicate this person in citing a botanical name", or "Zoological author abbreviation – The standard author abbreviation   may be used to indicate this person in citing a zoological name". This may be a bit wordy for the infobox, but I simply used what was already present in the Botanist template. Peter G Werner 17:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Wordy indeed! And unfortunately there were no break lines in there or size limitation to the template. I just tried out this parameter on a botanist's article - see diff. Is there some way we could clean this up? Also see discussion of the botanist template at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants. --Rkitko (talk) 16:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I've changed it so it's smaller. There was no need for that long sentence in the infobox. And it was incorrect since zoological author abbreviations are not standardized as botanical ones are. I also removed the autocategory from the botanical abbreviation parameter: the Botanist should still be used on the page somewhere. I didn't do the same for the zoology auth. abbrev. field since there is no Zoologist. --Rkitko (talk) 17:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Centralised discussion at MoS on flag icons
Please contribute to the centralised discussion on flag icons at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Please add comments over there, not here. Thanks. Carcharoth 14:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Many image sizing problems
Hi, I don't know who is in charge of this project, but I have had to clean about a dozen image, because they are being over-sized. I have commented on several user pages and now at the Admin notice board here:Oversizing. Please fix. Thanks: --Sadi Carnot 12:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:Nobel.svg
This edit to Carl David Tolmé Runge added after the name "Max Born", so that the "Doctoral students" entry reads:
 * Max Born [[Image:Nobel_prize_medal.svg|20px]]

I think the meaning is not clear. I don't know what the Nobel Prize looks, and I certainly can't recognize it from a 20-pixel image. Hence I had already removed it before and I'm inclined to remove it again. Any comments? -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 02:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

hCard microformat
I've added the necessary HTML classes to include an hCard microformat in the HTML mark-up produced by this template; plus the relevant documentation. Andy Mabbett 17:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Academic advisors (redux)
I think I raised this here before, and I'm wondering what people's views are at the current time on the field "academic advisor", especially relating to pre-20th century scientists. I realise the desire for using this infobox to document scientific geneaology and lineage, but to my mind "academic advisor" is a very modern term, and applying it to people like Charles Darwin, for instance, is misleading. See my comments at Talk:Charles Darwin. Is it possible to change the template so the header "academic advisor" can be replaced by an optional text if needed. This would still allow people to link between different infoboxes, per the "database parsing" features of infoboxes, but would also allow people to using the right phrasings for historical figures, such as "teacher", "mentor" and so on. What do people think? Carcharoth 09:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that would be a good compromise, though I'd rather have the field removed. We could use the specific "PhD supervisor" where it's applicable and another term to cover people like Isaac Barrow, who now has a long note in the infobox. As for Darwin, your comments state that there is nobody (or, actually, various people), who can be considered a mentor to Darwin, so I'm not sure why you raise that example. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 11:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I raised Darwin, because I recently removed academic advisor=Sedgwick from Darwin's infobox. Now we just need to find someone who knows how to make the field header flexible enough so people can put optional text in there. Carcharoth 22:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

influnences and influenced
The Usage statement says: Are these the right way around? I would have assumed that "influenced" was who they influenced, and "influences" was the influences acting on them. HairyWombat 00:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * influences – Insert topics/areas of science and/or other scientists he/she has influenced. Does not have to be exhaustive.
 * influenced – Insert other scientists he/she is/was influenced by. Does not have to be exhaustive.


 * Good call. Yeah, I reversed them.  (Diderot1 01:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC))

background colour
is (are) there any objections to adding a background colour to this infobox? i think it looks a bit weird having the subject's name just floating out there without bound. --emerson7 | Talk 19:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Asteroid discoverers
I am brand new to working with infoboxes and templates so I apologize if this is the wrong place to ask or silly: I came across this page  and if you take a look  it's a real mess with a floating table  and floating image and no biographical infobox. Many of the same category articles I checked have the same problem. I was wondering if it wouldn't make sense to combine the scientist infobox with this information somehow? I realize it's not that pressing of an issue, but I'd appreciate any feed back or suggestions. I'd be willing to work on standardizing the pages if we could come up with something. ThanksAwotter (talk) 08:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Religious stance
I've removed this, because I feel it's POV. Atheism isn't a religious stance, yet people who are atheists are being forced into a religious category. I also feel that the very inclusion of the category is in itself POV -- we don't ask about colour of hair or size of feet, so why religion? SlimVirgin (talk) (contribs) 16:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep.While I can understand your position, there are clear occasions when the religion of an academic is significant when considered in the context of their work; for example, although Simon Conway Morris does not have an infobox, if he did, knowing that he is Anglican would be useful when understanding his perspective and the way he has presented his work. As the parameter is optional, and leaving it blank means that nothing has to be said in the infobox about religion if its not relevant - as a result its inclusion as a parameter is not POV because it is not a required field. I would therefore suggest that a parameter for religion or religious position remain, so that when it is something that is relevant and of use in understanding the academic's life and work, it can be used. Robotforaday (talk) 02:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. I totally agree with Robotforaday. I would go further and say that if there is a clear religious stance for any scientist it should appear. This is because it is an important part of the biography for understanding philosophical influences, which do affect their approach to science...particular for 18th century scientists and before this is very important. No so much today for modern scientists. Isaac Newton is a prime example. Some modern scientists have an important religious influence such as John Polkinghorne. Also it is useful for the reader to know if the scientist has eschewed a religious stance...so if there is a clear case that the scientist is an athiest, this should be stated in the religion field. Also please note that this field was here by consensus from when the template was first created, and therefore should not be removed without prior discussion. Sudden removal also will widow all the 100s of hours of work that has been put into thousands of scientist infoboxes.  You really need to gather a consensus before you make such a draconian delete.QueenAdelaide (talk) 10:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Just don't use where inappropriate. Atheist, to be a religion, must be preceded with "militant." For most scientists, the qualifier "non-practicing" is redundant. "Apostate" is assumed for those burned at the stake. "Agnostic" might be the Huxley default value. The fact that Gould was Jewish is perhaps significant for understanding his views, but that Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, S.J., was, might be even left unstated in his infobox. --Wloveral (talk) 16:21, 26 April 2008 (UTC) corrected --Wloveral (talk) 17:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Simply put "non-religious" or leave empty. And militant atheism is rarely, if ever classified to be a religion, Wloveral. Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 05:14, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Why in this infobox is it "religious stance" when in most other infoboxes it's simply "religion?" DogFog (talk) 06:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why the originator chose that. However, I do like it because it is more encompassing. Many scientists do not subscribe to an organized religion, but may have a certain philosophical and religious stance in their writings...eg. they might be monotheistic, but don't care about about any specific religion.MessinaRagazza (talk) 20:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I feel the use of "stance" is unintentionally POV. It implies that religion and science are necessarily at odds and therefore a scientist needs to adopt a "stance" with or against religion. I recommend having it simply read "religion" or "belief system" or something else instead. Madcoverboy (talk) 17:56, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Prizes, honours, awards
Can I suggest that the text corresponding to the "prizes" parameter be changed from "Notable prizes" to "Notable awards"? There are many cases where the items listed are not properly described as prizes at all, but rather as honours (see, for example the five given for David Attenborough, not one of which is strictly a prize, but all of which are relevant information.) "Awards" would cover both prizes (in the strict sense) and honours. Vilĉjo (talk) 12:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Since no disagreement has been expressed, I have made the change. Vilĉjo (talk) 15:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

nobel 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 02:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Problem with infobox width
Hi, a recent edit to the infobox has caused a problem with its width: see John Parkinson (botanist). &mdash; Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 11:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Seems okay here and now; what problem are you seeing? Sardanaphalus (talk) 14:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Strange. On my computer the width of the infobox has suddenly gone extra wide. What seems to be happening is that the image caption now appears on a single line, and the box has extended to accommodate it. What used to happen was that the caption would wrap around over two or three lines. &mdash; Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 15:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I've solved the problem by deleting the "box width" parameter from the infobox at "John Parkinson (botanist)". I suppose that the problem is not evident in infoboxes that don't use this parameter. — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 10:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Glad everything now seems okay. Sorry I missed your reply to my q above. Sardanaphalus (talk) 14:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Image Size
This doesn't seem to be working for me. On Firefox 3 Beta 5 I see images as the default 225px regardless of what the parameter is set to. Anyone know if this is a template issue, or a browser issue? --Falcorian (talk) 18:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * What parameters have you used? I'm using Safari, and the image_size line correctly resizes the photo. Jiuguang Wang (talk) 18:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I have the same problem. The image_width parameter does not work in Firefox 2 or IE7.  It seems to use the default size. --Tom (talk - email) 13:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I just tested Firefox 2 - it works fine. You should use image_size, not image_width. Jiuguang Wang (talk) 23:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The documentation says to use image_width, which will need to be fixed. Also, a lot of articles seem to be using image_width. --Tom (talk - email) 04:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

image_width was the problem. image_size works (on FF2.0 at least). --Falcorian (talk) 01:56, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Adding informations about the relatives
Hi all, would it be possible to add to some of the fields related to the family found in Template:Infobox_Person in Infobox Scientist:
 * Spouse
 * Partner
 * Children
 * Parent
 * Relatives
 * ... and Cause_of_death

I'd like to track the families of scientists such as Darwin's one. Thank you --Plindenbaum (talk) 06:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I think another box is more appropriate for such information. The point of this particular infobox is to give a quick overlook of the scientist's field, background, education, etc...the parameters you listed above isn't relevant in most cases. (not to mention that such information is difficult to find in all but a few famous individuals. See for example IEEE Medal of Honor and Richard E. Bellman Control Heritage Award) - If you can find such information for, let's say half, of the laureates, I will personally add these parameters. --Jiuguang Wang (talk) 12:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I think I can suggest a solution: on wiki it is quite common to have two infoboxes for people that span more than one topic. For, example see Ernst Mach who has both the philosophy and scientist box (because he was both). So I suggest in cases like Darwin where you want to track the family, just put the person infobox underneath the scientist one. I would also recommend leaving blank and fields that were already taken care of in the scientist box. Just a suggestion :-) MessinaRagazza (talk) 21:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks MessinaRagazza . However wouldn't it be intrusive with the short articles ? I still don't understand why adding those fields is a real problem (in my own humble opinion this king of information is far more important than religion, residence or signature) moreover many other infoboxes (Infobox_Person, Infobox_Engineer, Infobox journalist, Infobox_Writer, .... ) contain this information ( why is it revelant for scientists ?!) and I saw many articles about scientists where it was said "he/she was the parent/child/relative  of X"--Plindenbaum (talk) 21:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Personally I agree with you. But getting a consensus around here is real tough. Therefore my suggestion was a "work around" so that people get to see how useful tracking family info is. Then when they see it in action, it may galvanize some action into making a better infobox to start with. By the way, I disagree with you point about religion....it is fascinating to track that for scientists.MessinaRagazza (talk)
 * MessinaRagazza don't be mistaken by what I wrote, religion is also an interesting point. :-)

Too wide
Should be 50% or 22em. -Zahd (talk) 03:05, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

'Title' parameter
Is there a reason that there isn't a 'title' parameter for this infobox? Since this is the box that editors are recommended to use for academics, it should probably have one. – SJL 03:29, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Why? I think in most situations the title is not very useful information, certainly not important enough to be put in such a prominent location. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 12:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Whether an academic is 'assistant professor', 'reader', 'lecturer', 'professor' or 'professor emeritus' is important enough information that it is the first thing listed after their credentials on business cards and university web pages. To a casual observer it might not mean much, but it indicates quite a lot to those who know something about it (stage of career and tenure status, for example). – SJL 16:15, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Aha! I misunderstood you, I thought you were talking about titles like Dr and Sir. Those job titles make a bit more sense, but I'm still not sure whether they should be included in an encyclopaedia. We also don't mention things like phone numbers and email addresses that are also written on business cards and university web pages. As you say, the job title tells you about the current stage the academic's career is in. I fear it's stressing the current situation too much, as opposed to "eternal truth". We have a guideline Avoid statements that will date quickly (the contents of the guideline do not apply, but I think there is a general principle to, well, avoid statement that will date quickly). But this is only how I feel about it, so unless somebody else speaks up I won't stop you if you add a Title parameter. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 21:05, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The precedent has already been set with, and I don't think that an academic's title is significantly more changeable than, say, the institution that they work for (especially in the case honorary titles like Professor Emeritus). I would add the parameter myself, but only administrators can edit this template. – SJL 22:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

additional hCard properties
editprotected

Please add additional hCard microformat properties, thus: [code redacted]

at the appropriate locations. Thank you. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:36, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Double-checking that the locations would be as such: [code redacted]


 * Just double-checking before I bring down Wikipedia with a faulty template ;) SkierRMH  ( talk ) 09:49, 25 October 2008 (UTC)


 * That looks fine, though I don't think the ordering is significant. Thank you.Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:49, 25 October 2008 (UTC)


 * ((done}} SkierRMH  ( talk ) 03:09, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


 * That's great, thank you. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 09:49, 26 October 2008 (UTC)