Template talk:Infobox writer/Archive 5

Problem with Influences/Influenced
editprotected If javascript is not enabled in your browser, the Influences and Influenced lists are not displayed; the default behavior when javascript is not enabled, should be to display those items. follows that approach, to cite one of many examples. You can use Victor Hugo and Gustave Flaubert as test cases. Thanks. 67.100.126.52 (talk) 08:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC).
 * ✅ Problem solved. —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 01:37, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Alt attribute can now be correctly supported
Now that the Wikimedia image syntax supports proper alt attributes, Template:Infobox Writer can be changed to use this new support. Without it, we have problems such as in Philitas of Cos, where the alt parameter of the infobox image Image:Antikythera philosopher.JPG is copied not only to the alt attribute of the image, but also to the title attribute of the containing A element. Instead, the alt= parameter should affect only the alt attribute of the image, and a new parameter (imagetitle=, say) should be used to specify the title attribute, which should default to the file name as is usual with Wikipedia. That is, the Philitas of Cos HTML should be changed as follows:

This can be implemented easily, by replacing  with   in the template; for details please see my recent patch to the sandbox. Eubulides (talk) 20:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I've specified it as the alt attribute. I don't see a need to create an image title parameter, because you already have the caption parameter. That could easily be used as the caption attribute if desired. For now, the caption is the default, which is the file name. Hope this is okay. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Fix microformats
Please reverse this edit, which erroneously introduced an hCalendar (event) microformat. Writers are people, not events, and the template already included the hCard microformat, which is used to describe people. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:14, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅, I had assumed User:J JMesserly knew about this stuff. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Sadly, he was mistaken. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 17:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Amy Sohn
Can someone help me out with the image/template in the Amy Sohn article? I tried everything, and can't get the template to be displayed properly. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 03:58, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed it, or at least it displays properly on my browser now. --ImGz ( t/c ) 04:13, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅. Use the bare filename: "image = AmySohnByDavidShankbone2.jpg" Press the edit button on the Amy Sohn article to see it in context. Xanthoxyl (talk) 04:19, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Adjustable default sizes
Now that the image syntax supports the "frameless" parameter, it's nicer if the infobox image scales according to user preferences. Currently the infobox image is 200px even when the user bumps the preferred thumbnail size from its 180px default to 300px. It's nicer if the infobox image scales according to the user preference, so that it's always 10/9ths of the size of the default. (The "10/9ths" is so that there's no change from the existing behavior unless the user changes the default.) Please install this sandbox change to do that. Eubulides (talk) 00:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Done, Woody (talk) 15:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Accessibility support for signature, and for decorative image
For WP:ACCESSIBILITY by the visually impaired this template should (1) also support alt text for the signature image, and (2) should not contain a link from the purely-decorative icon (see WP:ALT ). Please install this sandbox patch to do that; this patch assumes the patch of the previous section. I've documented and tested the new signature_alt parameter. Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 00:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Done, Woody (talk) 15:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

editprotected
 * Thanks, but that installation inadvertently commented out the call near the end of the template because it had been commented out in the sandbox. Could you please restore this? And for future reference, should I comment out such calls in sandboxes? Eubulides (talk) 17:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ There are bots that remove these templates eventually from pages that are not protected, so it's not really required to comment these things. Do what you want. —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 00:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Accessibility update
Due to changes in the Mediawiki software we now also have to add alt to the purely decorative image, as documented in WP:ALT . Please install as well. Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 05:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks, Skomorokh,  barbarian  08:30, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

color-coded alive/dead tag
I thought the background color for the infobox was supposed to change if the person had died, but I can't see that showing up on Richard E. Kim. Is that feature still working? The instructions indicate that it's still one of the parameters. Aristophanes68 (talk) 15:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Language parameter
The Writer infobox should have a "language" field that gives the language in which he/she wrote. For any writer, this is very relevant information, and in some cases, it is not obvious. Example: Isaac Bashevis Singer. The infobox tells you that he was born in Poland and became an American citizen -- this might lead you to conclude that he wrote either in Polish or in English, but in fact he wrote in Yiddish. Chl (talk) 01:35, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Strongly Support. It is actually ridiculous that the infobox has the whole set of parameters on Nationality, Ethnicity and Citizenship, but not what is the most important for a writer: the language of her/his writings. Another example is Franz Kafka which is described in the infobox as Nationality: Jewish–Bohemian (Austria–Hungary) but is not mentioning that he was writing in German. Elekhh (talk) 16:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Good observation. In many cases it is not obvious in which language the author was writing. I support addition of this parameter. - Darwinek (talk) 21:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * One of the few times I support adding a new parameter to an infobox. Yes, this would be useful. After it's been added can we talk about pruning some parameters? :) Garion96 (talk) 21:21, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. I also think this would be a very useful thing to see in the infobox. And on Garion's comment for about pruning the infobox, would it be in any way possible to instead lump like things, like family info, into one show/hide thingy? That way when I am looking for some basic information that I need I can quickly find it, but people who aren't looking for that will only see it if they hit 'show.'  Caleb Jon talk 09:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I kind of hate show/hide in an infobox. If it's important enough to mention in an infobox, it should not be hidden. That said, many of the parameters I don't find important at all. Like children for instance (the children are in general not notable), or the influence(s) section. All important information but not to have in a simple (sometimes excessively long) list in the infobox. Much better explained in prose in the article. Garion96 (talk) 10:26, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Central to the subject's identity as a writer.  Should it be called simply "language", or should it be called something more explicit, like "language written in" (just as an example)? Pi zero (talk) 13:54, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "Working language"? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Doesn't sound like art. Would prefer "Writing language" or simply "Language" Elekhh (talk) 13:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I prefer simply "Language". - Darwinek (talk) 19:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds like consesus. Elekhh (talk) 02:40, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Request admin help to add parameter Language after field Occupation. Template documentation to provide explanation: "Language of published writings".
 * Parameter added. Skomorokh,  barbarian  02:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Can we please have, like  does? (And, and I imagine some others that can be considered "subclasses" of but are not implemented by transcluding that)?

For example at László Németh there is a pictures of his place of burial, I was surprised not to find this field (or one like it, Infobox military person has  and , the latter to be able to override "Buried" in case the person died at sea or was cremated or whatever, no doubt "burial" here is a vestige and "resting_place" is probably more neutral).

Especially for an important writer, as much as for other kinds of people, this is vaguely important. It is quite an accolade, for example, to be buried in Poet's Corner. albeit a posthumous one.

I checked the template source in case it was there just undocumented, but can't see that it is (or anything like it), as far as I can tell the documentation fairly accurately reflects the actual code (quite a surprise considering the parlous state of most template doc).

The implementation here is of course simple enough that there seems little point writing an implementation until consensus has been reached.

Best wishes Si Trew (talk) 08:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Support. I think it is a very good idea. I remember being quite surprised in the past trying to add this parameter in some articles about writers, but without success. Definitely relevant, useful and needed parameter. - Darwinek (talk) 12:57, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Support. Seems reasonable.  --Pi zero (talk) 13:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, cool. Can probably just copy its implementation from. That does not allow one to override the label, though, but is probably enough for now. It also has  which is tempting to add, but perhaps that is too much for an infobox, or at least should be qualified, e.g. if someone hangs himself should it say "suicide" or "asphyxia". I suppose that judgment can be left to the editor: e.g. for Sylvia Plath it is probably important to note that she suicided, though certainly I don't know (and deliberately am not going to look just so I can say I do) how she did it; for George Orwell probably that he died of tuberculosis, because it affected his life and thus his writing career so much. For authors who died what Orwell calls "the worst of all, a natural death" it is probably not important enough to mention.

I do appreciate one of the aims of these specialiyed Infobox templates is to strike a balance between simplicity and completeness (e.g. have had arguments with people saying that is unnecessary because it can all be done by, which it can if you want to replicate in each article a load of stuff that could be transcluded automatically from the template) but I think the first is worthy, if not the second. The second seems a weaker case to me in that it should be used cautiously depending on really whether it affected the writer's work. The fact that Dennis Potter died of cancer is probably not, of itself, very important, for example.

Excuse me but I have bolded your above Supports just to make them stand clear. It is not intended to kinda emphasise my own opinion, which obviously is to support! Si Trew (talk) 20:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Stronlgy oppose death cause parameter. That would be excessive using that in an infobox. Garion96 (talk) 20:37, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Does that mean, by implication, you are neutral or support the restingplace parameter (whatever we decide finally to call it, but the principle of having it)? I am not canvassing here, I just think you should make it clear if you oppose, are neutral or support that too. Si Trew (talk) 21:14, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Seems like we might be on the brink of a slippery slope here, so I'm also inclined to oppose a death cause parameter. (I hope SimonTrew will pardon me, in turn, for bolding their strongly oppose.)  --Pi zero (talk) 20:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for bolding those, I thought to bold the oppose, while equitable, could also look like being rather interfering. You can tell I was undecided myself, which is why I brought it up for discussion.

I can see that Infobox person needs it as it has to be all things to all people. This is why we make these specialised templates in the first place, first to restrict what people can put (we are not interested in a writer's favourite colour, but we might be for a painter) and second so we can extend it or provide prepackaged, constant information for that type of subject.

I'm really pleased to have actually got some response on a template talk page for a change! So rare! I did knock up an implementation in my sandbox but, as I thought, it's so easy it's best to get consensus to the details first, if indeed it is supported in principle.

I'm sorry to make my responses so long, but I hope it saves others the trouble of having to guess my underlying reasoning. Si Trew (talk) 21:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

So can we add the resting_place parameter to the infobox? It seems there is no opposition to this move. - Darwinek (talk) 19:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * In my oppinion resting_place is much less relevant for a writer than a military person, so the comparison above is not valid. A writer is notable for his writing not for placing his life in danger or sacrificing it. I don't oppose the proposed field outright, but I would suggest at least in the parameter description to be mentioned that the field is optional and should be used only when considered relevant. Otherwise I'm afraid it can detract from more important fields, particularly as it is located at the beginning of the infobox. Take for example Alfred Nobel: three lines about resting place preceed much more important information. I oppose death_cause in the infobox. Elekhh (talk) 22:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that it should be optional. I am not really sure it is less relevant as a generalisation. I do agree that for many writers it is not very relevant, just as, say, their religion may not be relevant. But for others, it is, either if they are buried in a famous, infamous or illustrious place (e.g. Poet's Corner or a prison graveyard) or that, for example, they did expressly wish to be buried somewhere (e.g. at Wounded Knee). The point is to have the option, not to have to exercise it. Where it appears is totally a matter of choice for the designer of the infobox. Military person is not the only one to have this, as I noted, the more general Infobox person also has it (or a synonym), and I imagine others do, too. Si Trew (talk) 23:17, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I have updated the infobox code with resting_place parameter. - Darwinek (talk) 16:45, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Si Trew (talk) 23:17, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Influence parameter
The influence parameter does not seem to work for me. Does anyone else is having this problem? I have edited the Robert Jordan page on the simple english wikipedia website, and the name I have added is not showing up. Salnkgrl (talk) 16:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I cannot see a relevant difference between the source of the templates and the articles in simple and en, so it is pretty baffling why the content of "influences" does not show. The immediate reason is the fact that when you view the html source of each page you find that the content is present, but it is preceded with this:
 * The "display:none" explains why it does not display on simple, but I have no idea why that style occurs. Johnuniq (talk) 07:21, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The "display:none" explains why it does not display on simple, but I have no idea why that style occurs. Johnuniq (talk) 07:21, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The "display:none" explains why it does not display on simple, but I have no idea why that style occurs. Johnuniq (talk) 07:21, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Signature
There is an ongoing discussion at Template talk:Infobox officeholder regarding whether we should keep images of signatures in infoboxes. MitchellDuce (talk) 18:05, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I've read the discussion there, and commented that it is brought to attention here (thank you) and opposed its deletion there. To summarise, as I see it, the pros and cons there (of course one must read the discussion for the actual views, this is just as I see it, and a bit of a caricature):


 * Opposition, especially for living persons, on grounds of privacy or security
 * Opposition as being superfluous (i.e. bulking out the infobox) or unencylopaedic.
 * Support as encyclopaedic for people who habitually sign public documents and so their signatures are in the public domain
 * Support on the grounds that signaturs are interesting.

Were the same proposal made for Infobox writer, I would oppose it, but on somewhat different grounds:
 * It gives an idea of the writer's manuscript, and so is encyclopaedic, although admittedly not perhaps a very good one, since many people have signatures quite unlike their normal handwriting, and necessarily the sample will be short. That is, since a writer writes, it is interesting to see an example of their handwriting.
 * Issues for BLP are much the same as at Infobox officeholder, but I tend to side with saying these are pretty harmless. In fact, since a signature almost by definition is given to other people (to comfirm identity), providing that the reproduction does not easily allow it to be faked on a real document, and so I cannot see how it can be considered private. The fact that signatures are faked is irrelevant; that is a weakness of using signatures as proof of identity, and using them on WP does not confirm or negate that, though perhaps WP's widespread availability emphasises the weakness. That is, I would say the reproduction should not trivially be reproducible at a resolutin where it can pass off as a real signature. I am not sure this applies so much to dead people, on the one hand (pardon the pun) dead people don't sign things, but on the other hand, autograph-hunters do collect signatures of dead people.

Happy new year Si Trew (talk) 07:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Possible fault with this template
Hi. I'm in the #wikipedia-en irc channel with a user who has got an issue with this template, the issue is clearly visible here and it presents an error with the date of death. It is correctly specified in the page edit at that article, but something seems to suggest there is an extraneous { floating around somewhere. Could someone possibly verify the code please, just to confirm whether it is correct? Thanks  Barking Fish  Talk to me | My contributions 00:53, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It looks as if Soap fixed the issue. Johnuniq (talk) 00:59, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

curiosity
just out of curiosity, is there a reason why this infobox template isn't in infobox format? -- Ludwigs 2 19:24, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

editprotect request: overlinked
I can see no earthly reason that common English terms should be blued out in this template: English-speakers are meant to know what "pen name", "occupation", "nationality", "ethnicity", "domestic partner", etc mean. Do the link-targets "genre" and "literary movement" help the reader to understand the topic here? They are very general articles.

I ask that all of these items be unlinked as breaches of WP:OVERLINK. Tony  (talk)  08:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You are probably right, but delinking these has occasionally been controversial on other infoboxes. Therefore I ask that you get consensus for this change first. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually going through all of these links, I think most of them are valuable, to avoid misunderstandings about what is supposed to go in that field, and/or to provide some guidance on the sort of things that might go in that field. The most dispensable link would probably be Pen name, which might conceivably be unrecognized by some people but strikes me as most unlikely to be misunderstood; and even there I have no problem with leaving it be.  --Pi zero (talk) 17:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, what exactly is useful to an English-speaker about "nationality", "domestic partner", etc? Are they somehow unclear? If we link those items, we may as well link every word in WP, as though it's one big dictionary. Please see WP:OVERLINK. Tony   (talk)  10:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I guess someone might conceivably believe 'domestic partner' to mean 'pet', but neither 'nationality' nor 'ethnicity' are in any way ambiguous. A link to 'occupation' is as redundant as its meaning is unambiguous to all; as we are talking about an infobox focussed on writers, a link to 'pen name' appears to me to be equally redundant. Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 11:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree. I think MOS and MOSNUM guidelines on linking make it abundantly clear that editors should consider the subject matter of the article and the context of the sentence and link only when doing so would enhance a reader's understanding of the subject matter at hand. Templates, in my opinion, should not be automatically linking to articles as they can not consider the context and relevancy of the link; leaving it up to the editor is a far better solution. Any Wikipedian savy enough to seek out and use this template is certainly savy enough to make a link where appropriate. Greg L (talk) 15:15, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * yes. Genres, literary movement, and pen name are all that really need to be blued.  one other points, though: 'domestic partner' is truly wrong in this context.  The word refers to modern attempts to implement gay marriage, and I don't know of a single prominent literary figure who would class his/her relationship as a 'domestic partnership'.  it's even worse when you consider the (several) historical writers who had both opposite sex spouses and same sex lovers, where both were important figures in their lives.  I suggest we chagne that to 'influential relationships' or some such.  -- Ludwigs 2  17:33, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Only bluing those three sounds fine to me, supposing Domestic partner(s) gets renamed to something self-explanatory.


 * The word "domestic" seems like a complete red herring, but I think influential relationships would be incomprehensible; I certainly wouldn't have the foggiest what it was supposed to be about if I didn't happen to know what it was replacing. That particular choice (just an off-hand example, I understand) would actually be worse than the status quo.  Should the word "personal" come into it somehow?  --Pi zero (talk) 19:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Quoting Ludwigs: “Genres, literary movement, and pen name are all that really need to be blued”. Fine. That’s your opinion. And you may well be correct. But such decisions are left to the editor based on whether or not the subject matter of the article is sufficiently relevant. It's easy enough for editors to link when doing so would add to the reader’s understanding of the given subject. Making such things always linked because a template always behaves that way results in unnecessary linking depending on the subject matter. It would be absurd to suggest that the terms you provide as examples should always be linked, regardless of the context in which it is used or what the article is about. Just because a template can be made with lots of automated features such as built-in linking for every imaginable word and term, doesn’t mean it is a good thing to do so. The English language and the nature of encyclopedias means that everything is not a “one-size-fits-all” proposition. Our MOS and MOSNUM guidelines are complex and in many cases invite the editor to use common sense. Templates can't use common sense. Greg L (talk) 01:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed. This one-size-fits-all infobox mentality does no good to the role and reputation of infoboxes. It essentially takes away from local article editors the ability to shape what is linked and what is not according to the topic, the content. That is a bad thing. Tony   (talk)  08:00, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * what a bizarre conversation. the reason why a label like 'genre' would be linked on a template is because it is assumed that readers might not be familiar with that term and want to follow a link to the article on it - that would be equally true on any page the template is transcluded onto, so I don't see any value to giving local-page control over the matter.  giving local page control, on the other hand, will significantly increase the complexity of the template.  If you think everyone knows what 'genre' means, delink it; if you think a significant portion of readers might not, leave it linked; if you want editors to have control over every little detail of presentation, don't use a template in the first place.  I cannot imagine a concrete case where it would make sense for a template phrase to be linked on on page and unlinked on another - can you suggest one, or at least give something concrete that would make this sensible?  -- Ludwigs 2  09:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Support removal of wikilinks for "occupation", "nationality", "ethnicity" and "domestic partner", per WP:OVERLINK and arguments above. If there is any ambiguity about the meaning of "domestic partner" (and its relevance) that should be clarified on the template documentation page. I am neutral on "Genres", "Literary movement", and "Pen name" as these relate closely to the topic and might be useful for some readers. Elekhh (talk) 00:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I am disappointed to see that "Occupation" and "Nationality", common terms, are still linked. Why? I am no expert in infoboxes, but there's an additional issue: can editors change a singular to a plural? I see "Pen name" follwed by six pen names, which looks ridiculous. P. G. Wodehouse. Tony  (talk)  12:41, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I de-linked occupation, but I did not made it plural. Infobox person uses also singular form. - Darwinek (talk) 14:31, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you; why is "Nationality" still linked? Tony   (talk)  00:36, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * A number of common terms are still linked, for example "nationality". Why? Tony   (talk)  06:17, 3 April 2010 (UTC)