This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
Found this template when I noticed the fabulous awards change to the actor infobox. Nice job, Kudret abi! My question is this: we've got the Goya Awards in the template, so how's about Ireland's film and TV awards, the IFTAs? I know there's a generic area at the bottom, but it would be nice for Irish awardwinners' infoboxes to have an IFTA section with its own heading. Since the whole shebang is now collapsible, one more category isn't much of an issue, and it would remain blank for non-Irish actors anyway. -- Melty girl 15:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
I know there is plenty of discussion above about removing various fields from the infobox, but would anyone object to the addition of an "Occupation" field? I certainly think it would be useful to have this, given that the infobox is used for more than just actors (film directors, producers, etc), and also because many actors aren't just actors. Any thoughts? PC78 13:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
There is now an outdated version of this infobox template on the main project page. Seems like it should either be updated, or perhaps preferably, it should be replaced with a link to this article so that it can not go out of date again. -- Melty girl 16:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Discussion above indicates that nominations should not be included in the Awards section of the infobox. The practice is, however, widespread. One example: Johnny Depp, where it's very carefully set up. The only way I can think of to communicate the intention against nominations' inclusion would be to rename the section "Awards won". Otherwise, I think some of us will be removing nominations from infoboxes, and then others will come by and revert or re-add. Thoughts? -- Melty girl 02:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I applaud the idea with the multiple awards, as I already did the same overriding the original template sometime ago. ;) It also goes a long way in replacing the retarded adult actors box in the long run. However I reverted your change as it breaks hundreds of wiki articles including this one. Here's how it should look like. Notable roles belong on top, right now I'd actually have to completely give up the actors info box in current state and move all the cluttered code in the article.
By the way, the use of mellow yellow and purple could cause eye cancer for an European, ;) but who cares, as long as people cultivate articles like Donkey Punch we should give less than a damn about the American Wikipedia, no? I certainly do, you just messed with the wrong article. :)
It's also better to write occupation(s) as I also did in the past. :) If there's just one you could catch this special case with some effort. Besides in my humble opinion the idea to remove notable roles as being POV is hilarious at best. Harrison Ford is Indiana Jones, Harrison Ford is Han Solo but he's for sure not Jethro the Bus Driver -- just ask the kids ;) Also actors get awards for a specific(!) notable role... be it an Oscar, some obscure independent movie award or even an adult actors award, there is no question about wether this addition is useful or not. Maybe I should rephrase it to with good judgement there should be no question about wether this addition is useful or not -- but then again see above.
If you get enough Wikipedians to vote for a removal of "notable roles" (two code monkeys messing up templates is obviously not enough given they face 500 people who did add "notable roles" to actors biographies in the past... so the majority regards this information as useful, so do I btw) then be sure to change the template in a way it DOES NOT break other wiki articles, if you're not sure it does than DON'T change it... if you do anyway you force me to replace the template on some articles with completely template independent code because it saves me time, as I don't put templates on my watchlist and it's tedious to fix it every two month. Of course I want to encourage you to further improve the template, just not like that. You removed "notable roles" in articles people added it back in, what does that tell you? now you remove it in the template? I do like the idea with the expandable awards list but make it compatible first and do not use it to push your personal agenda hoping there will be somewhat less resistance cause people often don't mess with the templates themselves. I had to come here wondering who the heck broke the LA article again. While there may be room for discussing the "notable roles" thing in general there really is none for breaking articles just for some fancy effect. Add it back in, this time without breaking anything.
thanks for reading, good luck and many more good ideas in the future!
Hello to you three: pcr78, Melty girl and Kudret abi.
Mirwais just forgot to sign his post off, he did not want to be rude in any way! I fail to see how encouraging someone to improve a template is dismissive? But reverting a revert without even taking a look at what caused the problem first is something I would call hastily and bigheaded.
"I applaud the idea with the multiple awards" "thanks for reading, good luck and many more good ideas in the future!" --mirwais
yeah, really dismissive?
"Hello unsigned user" is dissmive, you just need to click on the history button to see who posted. especially people who seem to spend most of their time at wikipedia should know that. As for the other stuff posted
"the reality is that this field is wide open to abuse by users adding their favourite characters from their favourite films." --pcr78
the reality is that this field is wide open for users to supply useful information. Sooner or later there is a consensus about what roles are the most notable. the reality is also like what Mirwais said above. Most people including me do not know how to change such a template and wonder why suddenly everything is gone!?! You might not know this, but taking the history of the LA article this happend like the fourth time.
"The widespread use of the notable roles field is not a valid reason for keeping it" --Melty girl
Sure, having the personal preference of dicarding what many other users valued isn't either. It seems people really like this kind of useful information. If you want to see not useful information check the adult actors info box and have a good laugh... blood type, weight, hair lenght lol :=)
"I checked a number of articles after the changes were made, and all seemed to be OK" --pcr78
You did not check the LA Article like mirwais told you, instead you posted that there is no problem without checking the obvious one. when you discovered your error you silently fixed it, so that one other poster named Melty girl thought there is no problem.
"removed flag from infobox" --pcr78
and I care because? kindergarten. I guess it's how you deal with failure.
"how about instead of just reverting, leave the links here and we then we can have a look at it and attempt to fix it?"
Yes, that sounds reasonable. I am happy the article got fixed in some way. As for "thorough discussions and consensus" regarding the removal of notable roles. I don't see such a discussion taking place on this page. Just a bunch of very loose related answers not directly dealing with this topic in depth. On the other hand you have two strong keeps now to speak in your language hehe. I see no real arguments against keeping information about noteable roles, no wonder Melty girl has problems repeating all the heavy arguments against it.
I do not know if it is possible but you could make a poll on the start page or something. I really like to read information about what roles certain actors became famous for. it is something like greatest hits for musicans. Whatever you do, always think about who caused the problem to begin with and how the problem was dealt with "There is no problem". I believe it wasn't the article but the changes done to that template.
Now I have to sleep :) thank you all for fixing this, goodnight and bye bye -- PartySan CZ 23:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
" I did check the Laura Angel article once Mirwais drew my attention to it, since I took the time to fix some of the problems with the infobox" -PC87
Rehash of timeline
16:24, 3 August 2007 PC78 (There is no problem yadda yadda)
16:25, 3 August 2007 PC78 (Undid revision 148950085 by J mirwais (talk))
16:31, 3 August 2007 PC78 (updated infobox)
16:37, 3 August 2007 Melty girl (what PC78 said "I don't understand what you mean by it being "broken.")
.
.
.
02:09, 4 August 2007 PC78 (Talk | contribs) (112,097 bytes) (I partly fixed the problematic article)
Why play the blank-faced first place?
"I removed the flag simply because there's no reason for it to be there" -PC87
yes, of course. (insert Tony Montana smile here :) Just 2751 flags remaining, GO! GO! GO! :P
"If you want to keep it, you'll need to present a better argument than "I really like to read information about what roles certain actors became famous for." -PC87
Now that we have that out of the way I will give it a try.
In reply to Rossrs, Melty girl and PC78,
the notion that there were edit wars over certain actors infoboxes is pointless, as there are edit wars over articles probably as long as Wikipedia exists. The principle as I understood it is to always find a general consensus in such cases. The principle is not to stop anyone from starting a "probably controversial" article first place.
the notion that the fiercely fought over "notable roles field" was added without prior discussion is either of little importance given that almost all (that includes the controversial) wikipedia articles themselves are created without prior discussion.
Identifying and listing notable roles does not constitute a violation of WP:NPOV because if there is enough "accuracy and substantiation" in the main article to substantiate why a certain actor became notable with a certain role (success of the movie, awards, quotes etc.) then nothing speaks against putting these certain roles as an excerpt in an infobox for a quick overview.
The principle of WP:NPOV is not violated as these certain roles (think Harrison Ford, Sigourney Weaver etc...) represent a fairly significant unbiased view of what the general public sees as roles of importance and why these persons are regarded as artists rather than what one individual person sees in her/his personal point of view.
The decision wether or not a certain role is "notable" enough to be highlighted in the info box is solely based on wether it can be extracted from the article and it's sources. This decision has to be made on a case by case basis rather than erroneously stating a "notable roles field" violates WP:NPOV per se.
To give you another Captain Obvious example. If I go to the Sigourney Weaver article and add her role as a cookie munching kid in an old advert when she was like 5 years old as THE one notable role of her life, it won't take long people will correct me in this refering to WP:NPOV. Would I add her role as Ripley in Alien as "notable" I would for sure not have violated WP:NPOV.
It is a non-negotiable fact that general public regards certain persons as artists of significance based on certain roles they played. The infobox is a nice way to reflect this.
As an unrelated aside, speaking of navigation inside articles, I personally think it is very useful to link the "role" and the "movie title" as some kind of quickjump to the appropriate passages in longer articles, especially given the movie or fictional character has no article on Wikipedia itself.
czechmated! :P You can leave me a message on my talkpage once you figured how that happend ;) -- PartySan CZ 16:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
PC78 first.
A problem? moi? yep, it's sunday and i am running out of chocolate, but that's nothing
compared to you who has declared war on all flags ;) I will just sit back, fetch some popcorn and enjoy the show. :P
Okay speaking bluntly, I was a little bitchy about how you answered Mirwais who had fixed the template for me, that you then broke (and later fixed) again. I admit I might have pulled your chain for the tone of speech in your first post. I gave my last post a new heading in favor of a matter-of-fact tone and a caesura. Now everything looks fine again, so lets forget about that and move on. Despite the bitching I am really thankful that you and Kuderet Abi got that worked out and fixed what worked before. ;) About that flag thing, it was me who put it in the box some time ago as I like to decorate stuff.
I see we are now one step further then yesterday, as Rossrs and you realized that a notable roles field
does not have to be against WP:NPOV. That's something many posters either did not realize yet or try to challenge.
You say there might be a lack of objective criteria and we might need to break it down in babysteps for our fellow Wikipedians ;) *just teasing*
Well I suggest the following:
1. We re-establish the "notable roles field" as the claim that this field inherently breaks N:POV can no longer be sustained.
2. We start making a guideline and I try to help you with that as good as it is possible with my command
of the english language.
I can't help with the latter this month though as I won't spend any time with internet stuff the next few weeks. PC87, do not underestimate your fellow wikipedians! Most actor pages I visited looked quite good concerning the choice of notable roles in the info boxes. Of course this is just my very personal opinion as I am everything but an expert on American movie actors.
Also in the bold text above you find some answers as to where to start finding some objective criteria like success of the movie, awards, nominations, articles etc. , it might not always be as easy as with Christopher Lee, but I think we can dare to trust in sound judgement of those experts working on these articles, after all that's the idea Wikipedia was founded on.
I do think common sense is one - maybe unwritten - core principle of Wikipedia, still a guide with some kind of ruleset and good examples shouldn't hurt. You need to use common sense and some research/sorting out to begin with otherwise a project like Wikipedia would not work. Also you're not alone in this, you might get help.
Unfortunately the framework to identify a notable role can not just be stripped down to simple mnemotechnic sentences like Ariel, César and Oscar steal a golden raspberry of notable size from Granny Emmy in Cannes. Just because so and so got an Oscar nomination doesn't implie it's a noteable role. Such things are just clues. However if you have a bunch of clues covered at the same time in our yet to do guide then there's a pretty good chance you can add the role in question to the notable field given the article is based on reliable sources. That's how I have seen similiar things handled on Wikipedia in the past.
Hey Rossrs, I have not czechmated? :P that was a little joke on my part ;)
However there is an element of truth in this analogy. If someone says checkmate to me it can take a
loooong time before I wipe the board ;) I also might never play with you again ;))
Let me ask you a question. Is it a fact Harrison Ford is "a notable artist" who played "notable roles" or is it an opinion or a conclusion you drew from somehing. What if I would say something vicious like "Harrison Ford did not play any notable roles and he is not even an artist." Would that matter? hardly. You find the answer to " who is saying that these are his notable roles? " in the much too bold lines of my previous post. Just take a look wether it was a journalist, a fan, a director or a fellow Wikipedian... back? All choices were wrong? Yes, this was covered on a much greater scale in general public featuring objective evidence and significant media coverage based on numerous reliable sources.
The article on Harrison Ford refelects that stating "He is best known for his performances as the tough, wisecracking space pilot Han Solo in the Star Wars film series, and the adventurous archaeologist/action hero in the Indiana Jones film series." These notable roles are a fact no matter how you put it. The article used objective criteria to back that up like box-office hits, sales, an article in the Empire magazine, a Saturn Award for Best Actor (Raiders of the Lost Ark) etc. If we could not substantiate these claims with facts we would have to delete this sentence, luckily we can.
You argued: "if the infobox records that his notable roles are Han Solo and Indiana Jones, who is saying that these are his notable roles?. The correct answer to the question is "Wikipedia" or perhaps "the last person who edited this article". That's not acceptable"
Maybe you now realize you created some circular argument par excellence and drew a wrong conclusion ;)
You also said: "It is not the job of Wikipedia or any of it's editors to interpret data to reach a conclusion and then present the conclusion as a fact. "
Well, this is not the way it works given the notable role is a fact in itself evident from the sources. If you can't backup with sources why a certain role is notable you can't put it in the notable roles field.
You see the people working on the Harrison Ford article did their best to point out a notable role of importance. Highlighting such roles as an excerpt in an infobox for a quick overview can be quite useful.
Of course some might say this particular example is blatantly obvious or whatever as it is part of modern pop-culture, now what if I want to know something about Zarah Leander, Greta Garbo or Hugo Haas. Bang! I have to read the entire article and will probably miss the beginning of a great Lou Scheimer He-Man cartoon ;)
We should also remember that wiki articles are not absolute in any way and often a work in progress. Just because one notable role might be missing in some cases wouldn't break the info box or misinform someone who risks a sketchy view on the box rather then reading the article in depth. Not having any evident, well sourced, notable roles at all in this little box would be a loss for me. The more the less I know about the actor. There will always be actors where this field doesn't make any sense given their filmography - that's why it's optional.
Kind regards -- PartySan CZ 19:11, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
In response to Rossrs.
Well, I'm sorry I missunderstood you. My bad. I try to sum up my last post dry-as-dust this time. ;) Which is against the nature of every joke cookie. :P
Since you chose to not answer my question, I will also supply the answers, as I would give them, for this little rundown.
1. You argued: "if the infobox records that his notable roles are Han Solo and Indiana Jones, who is saying that these are his notable roles?. The correct answer to the question is "Wikipedia" or perhaps "the last person who edited this article".
Completely wrong. Please see my post above for detailed information.
Harrison Ford | |
---|---|
File:Harrison Ford IJ4.jpg |
2. You said: "A "notable role" is not a fact, but an opinion or a conclusion"
Wrong, since it can be a fact as you provide sources.
However it can be just an opinion lacking sources. A conclusion is everything including that source 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 = FACT. You make conclusions whenever you start a new wiki all the time.
3. Explain the difference between this:
A FACT -> Harrison Ford's most notable roles to date are Indiana Jones and Han Solo 1 2 3 4
1 source
2 source
3 source
4 source
and that ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------->
How does a fact violate N:POV? once you put it in the box right next to the article. The answer is very easy by the way...
IT DOES NOT. What is a fact outside the box is still a fact inside the box.
4. You said: "you still have not addressed the issue of taking discussion of notable roles in the article, where I agree it is acceptable, into the infobox, where I still believe it to be unacceptable."
The discussion of notable roles STAYS in the article, the info box is merely an extract of the information inside the articles main text.
As for noteable roles being unacceptable in the infobox.
why?
My argument for keeping the notable roles information as a truncated copy in the infobox is actually very easy: IT IS USEFUL.
I think the box itself was invented as a visually useful table for extra information around a picture. Even the oral pleadings what belongs in such a box and what does not is completely on trial and not a non-negotiable policy by order of the King :) (at least that's what I think).
Thank you for joining the discussion Kudret abi,
The same question for you: Can a notable role be a fact? If you answer no, or in most cases most likely no then it makes sense to remove it from the box. If you say yes, then we have a problem (nah, not really) ;)
The question for me is, shall we remove this field because it could be disputed in certain cases wether a certain role for an actor is notable and I agree such dicussions should take place inside the article for a reason. As stated above I see it merley as an excerpt of information already in the article. In cases where the article doesn't evidently support it I wouldn't use the notable roles field. Other wikipedians however may, which is when a problem could arrise. Is this problem outweighted by the "usefulness"? In my opinion and maybe in the opinion of many who filled this field with information it is.
Kind regards -- PartySan CZ 09:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
First Rossrs, No worries! I did enjoy the discussion with you and this will be my last post on this too, as I also think we spin circles here, which is never a good sign... actually I now hate the word not(e)able. I never want to write it again ;)
Please don't feel bad or sorry the slightest as I really think I need to jolly you up now being to harsh :/ I hope I can contribute to some less fought over stuff on wikipedia somewhere in the future, maybe something you can actual enjoy rather then argue over - let's see ;)
In response to PC87,
"about the flags... We certainly shouldn't be adding them to articles simply because we "like to decorate stuff". :) "
Well, I obviously didn't wrote that because I couldn't think of a better argument. :) "to declare war on all flags" was just a wordplay which struck me, so I had to use it ;). For me flags are a nice visualization, as commonly used with ID Cards on sport and music events. Yes, the flag is there, and you know what? People like it ;) Well maybe not here on this wikipedia discussion site but in general. Just like the info box itself is nothing more than a visualization help. Good luck with the removal though ;) Wait! You forgot to remove the flag from the Harrison Ford article! how could that happen? ;)
"What you want to do is put all these things together and draw conclusions from them, but unfortunatly this is original research"
Original research is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories.
now let's see what have I written before...
"this was covered on a much greater scale in general public featuring objective evidence and significant media coverage based on numerous reliable sources."
Guidelines as I have suggested (and you called for) are used to define notability for example. Take a look, to get a quick grasp how this is different from original research. In such a guide I wouldn't advise anyone to use any unpublished sources on the contrary. By working together I meant people should help each other to find good sources where is need. If we can then identify and highlight a notable role in the main article as factual information we should be able to include it also in the infobox. That's what I meant by "What is a fact outside the box is still a fact inside the box."
"Finally, you've been using Harrison Ford as an example to support your own position, but if you look at the article there were actually seven notable roles listed in the infobox. I'd like to see you apply your reasoning to some less obvious examples."
I already thought about that before...
1. There will always be actors where this field doesn't make any sense given their filmography - that's why it's optional.
2. The question for me is, shall we remove this field because it could be disputed in certain cases wether a certain role for an actor is notable and I agree such dicussions should take place inside the article for a reason. As stated above I see it merley as an excerpt of information already in the article. In cases where the article doesn't evidently support it I wouldn't use the notable roles field. Other wikipedians however may, which is when a problem could arrise. Is this problem outweighted by the "usefulness"? In my opinion and maybe in the opinion of many who filled this field with information it is.
PC87, as long as we assume notable roles can't be facts your argumentation to remove the field is (partly) sound. However that's exactly where we differ. On the one hand you do not allow me to use facts and guides that define notability as well as notable roles and call it "original research" on the other hand you claim to agree with Rossr, who however, if I got it right this time, agreed with me at least in one point: that a notable role can be included in the main article, based on what I have posted above without violating N:POV. Also Kudret abi currently thinks that "notable roles" can be included in the main wiki article as they get identified, he didn't give any clues as how to do that though.
So now we should really focus on the notable roles field. If I am the only voice who states that a notable role can indeed be a fact then you can leave the template in current state until someone notices the error. Maybe I find a big fault in my own argumentation too. Have you czeched yours? ;)
some random stuff for all of you to think about (no need to answer, just stuff I thought about):
Who says Harrison Ford is an artist? Who says he is a notable artist? Was it the last wikipedian who edited his wiki? Is it a fact Harrison Ford is "a notable artist" who played "notable roles" or is it an opinion or a conclusion we drew from somehing?
Awards and nominations. How many of these are required? Why do we use awards to define notability on some actors. Are all awards equal, or are some to be considered more important than others? Am I (or my role) notable with just one Award or are more required? How successful is a film required to be? Being a notable artist is not a fact, but an opinion or a conclusion. A "notable role" is not a fact, but an opinion or a conclusion" I stop here before anyone gets dizzy ;)
Kind regards -- PartySan CZ 18:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Before finally bowing out of this disscussion I will try to answer PC87 one more time ;) PC87, "significant media coverage" as stated above (two times ;)) means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. The only research you have to do is finding these sources first place and evaluate wether they are reliable.
I also talked about objective evidence which is information which can be proven by anyone to be true, based on facts that substantiate. That's not POV at all.
Following your reasoning I could also say "I find this whole idea of "notable artists" to be POV and subjective, and I believe any guideline will suffer from the same problem, since any criteria will be completely arbitrary. " yet people made a helpful guide for others and reached a consensus about what makes a "notable artist".
If we can define notability we can also define what is a notable role.
What we can present as evident factual information in the main article, we can also put in the infobox without hesitation.
Sure, you shouldn't put some random roles of an actor inside the infobox based on personal preference. Once you put a role in the infobox that isn't even mentioned in the wiki article you very likely did something wrong or are working on a stub ;) To give people guidance in which direction to look for references one could create a list of clues like awardlists, box office sales, published books, film after market around a character and whatnot. People working on actors biographies already do such an evaluation when writing the main wiki article text. The infobox is not the place where such a discussion takes place, in my opinion it should merely reflect what's already discussed and backed up inside the main article.
The notable roles field inside the infobox can then provide useful inter-Wiki links to other articles, besides giving a quick overview.
As stated numerous times I think "notable roles" can indeed be verified as fact, while you think they can't. I am not sure about Kudret abi's position on this.
Should there ever be a majority following my or another reasoning in favor of keeping the "notable roles" field I'd prefer to also have this field "collapsible" in the same way as the Awards.
On a personal note, PC87, though we had what I would call a bad start in the discussion I think we now have build a pretty decent framework other wikipedians can use to form an opinion about the "notable roles field". So it might be the best for the current debaters to wait for other opinions since we reached kind of a deadlock. Kind regards -- PartySan CZ 20:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
I actually just popped onto this talk page to see what happened to this field, and apparently it's been a point of contention. I think it's valuable because with many of the lesser known actors, especially television actors, it's sometimes the one of the only pieces of the infobox one can actually fill out. As for larger NPOV issues, sure, they can be an issue, but I think in most cases, people's most notable roles can be discerned. matt91486 08:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I should like to make the proposal that in cases such as the Template :Infobox actor, where a small number of editors have removed the notable roles field from the Infobox, which is on thousands of articles that a notice should be placed on Wikipedia's Main Page, asking everyone for their views - a poll.
It is totally wrong that the small number of editors who visit this Talk Page should take decisions on articles used by the vast majority of registered editors. There are more than 5 million registered editors on Wikipedia.
If there is a proper poll that approves this change then popular consent can be claimed, if, however, there is no poll then the decision to remove the Notable Roles field will simply be seen as the peremptory action of a small, unrepresentative clique.
Vorrock 14:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
i have a suggestion. since this template is being used for not only actors, but directors and producers as well, i believe it should be changed to "Infobox hollywood" and the fields should facilitate all the major figure types in the motion-picture industry. I think the "occupation" field is a good start, but it could go much further. -- PopeFauveXXIII 04:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
It seems to me that, if the contentious awards sections were changed, such that the award titles were also data fields, and made more generic, this could be merged into {{ Infobox person}}. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 16:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't the
! <tr ...
lines in the "awards" section be changed to something like
{{!}}style="text-align:left;" colspan="2"{{!}}
? Isn't that a little cleaner and more consistent? (and portable to other stable MediaWikis) -- TedPavlic 18:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
and how come it's not working anymore? Ospinad 20:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
This edit introduced a formatting glitch to the infobox: the text colspan="2" style=" text-align:center; font-size:100%;"
appears next to the image. Can an admin please revert or repair the edit? --
Muchness
08:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
{{
image class}}
it was fine, but when documenting that template I accidentally added a newline, breaking this template. It should be fine now.--
Patrick
09:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi Patrick, can you explain what was the purpose of this change? It looks like something to do with placeholders, but I am not totally clear. Thanks, -- Kudret abi 02:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}} Will somebody please change the fistful on instances of
to
the value of an html width-attribute is in pixels by default, unlike css where the px-suffix is correct. As it is, this is a syntax error. -- Jack Merridew 13:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}} Merge Birthname with Born.
Change:{{!}}-
{{#if:{{{birthname<includeonly>|</includeonly>}}} |
{{!}}width="85"{{!}} '''Birth name'''{{!}}{{!}} {{{birthname}}}
}}
{{!}}-
{{#if:{{{birthdate<includeonly>|</includeonly>}}} {{{birthplace|}}} {{{location|}}} |
{{!}}width="85"{{!}} '''Born''' {{!}}{{!}} {{#if:{{{birthdate<includeonly>|</includeonly>}}}|{{{birthdate}}}<br />}} {{{birthplace<includeonly>|</includeonly>{{{location|}}}}}}
}}
To:{{!}}-
{{#if:{{{birthname<includeonly>|</includeonly>}}} {{{birthdate|}}} {{{birthplace|}}} {{{location|}}} |
{{!}}width="85"{{!}} '''Born''' {{!}}{{!}} {{#if:{{{{birthname<includeonly>|</includeonly>}}}|{{{birthname}}}}}<br />{{{birthdate<includeonly>|</includeonly>}}}<br />{{{birthplace|{{{location<includeonly>|</includeonly>}}}}}}
}}
Please rv it to the current version if it doesn't work. Wikipedian 13:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Question: should the first occupation be capitalized? I wouldn't think so, and the documentation seems to indicate no, but not too clearly. But other users keep capitalizing it, so I'm not sure. Whatever the answer is, the documentation should probably specify. Thanks -- Melty girl 18:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
i have changed the colour of the awards fields over in Template:Infobox Comedian from this to this to match that of the infobox header. however, the default font gets drowned in the darker hue. it would be great if someone could lend a hand. -- emerson7 | Talk 15:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
<span style="color:White>[[Academy Award]]s</span>
I would be good to see how much they were earning for their most recent film and their total worth. I propose estimated earnings and estimated career earnings fields. John 15:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Can some thought be given to adding a "nationality" parameter to this infobox, in line with other infoboxes such as {{ Infobox Person}} and {{ Infobox Writer}}? Cheers, Jacklee 11:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I apologize if this has already been discussed before; I don't usually come here. I use the template quite a lot and the Gemini Awards don't show in the box like the rest of them. See for example Torri Higginson and Nicholas Campbell. Could someone kindly fix this, please ? Thank you, have a nice day. Rosenknospe 11:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
{{ Infobox film}} supports IMDb film profiles using imdb_id parameter. I'd like to see the corresponding name behavior supported here and have implemented imdb_id in {{ Infobox actor/sandbox}} with test cases provided for review. The differences are here. – Conrad T. Pino 12:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I think it will be good idea to support IMDB for actors too. 65.166.51.6 18:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
The documented geminiawards parameter fails with {{ Infobox film}} due to spelling errors within the template, spelled as geminiaward without the ending s. – I suggest revising the template to agree with the documentation as demonstrated in {{ Infobox actor/sandbox}} with test cases provided for review. The differences are here. – Conrad T. Pino 13:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
{{ Infobox actor/sandbox}} contains conditional logic to support full copy and paste between the {{ Infobox actor/sandbox}} and {{ Infobox actor}}. Selective {{ Infobox actor}} edits to adopt new {{ Infobox actor/sandbox}} code are no longer required. – Conrad T. Pino 07:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
Please copy the entire {{
Infobox actor/sandbox}} into {{
Infobox actor}} without modification.
The functional changes are:
Test cases for {{ Infobox actor}} and {{ Infobox actor/sandbox}} are availabe for review at {{ Infobox actor/testcases}}.
Conrad T. Pino 07:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Are these sections necessary to this infobox? For starters, "parents" is almost totally pointless (their names are often not even mentioned in the article itself to begin with) and only makes this infobox look more ungainly (see for example Richard Jenkins). "Children" can also stretch on for too long. Neither one of these fields has anything to do with the person's notability as an actor or even to their basic biographical stats. Anyone agree and thinks they should be removed? All Hallow's Wraith 06:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
According to that template's page, there is supposed to be a discussion here about merging it into this template. Anybody? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 12:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
For what it's worth to anybody, I support that merge (and/or redirection) of that template into this one; that template also has less than 250 instances in use. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 13:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Is it necessary to have an IMDB link in the infobox? It is customary already to have a link to the IMDB in the external links section (and is done so for practically every single actor), so I think it's kind of pointless to (presumably?) have it included twice in an article, especially since it's not even considered a WP:RS in the first place. All Hallow's Wraith ( talk) 09:30, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
The change was discussed in Internet Movie Database link above. The imdb_id parameter is optional; it's omission hides all visual effects produced when present. Since templates are optional they're an exceedingly poor standards enforcement mechanism. – Conrad T. Pino ( talk) 22:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I added a link to this discussion (which appears only on pages where the link is used), so that we can hear more opinions.-- Patrick ( talk) 09:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't see how this is any different from having the IMBD link for a film in the film infobox and having the link in the external links section for the same film article. Def. keep in the infobox for me. Lugnuts ( talk) 10:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Which goes back to my point of why have it in the Film infobox too? Someone said it's been there since 2004 in that one. If it's duplicating info, then why have the infobox fullstop? I can find the date of birth of the person in the article and all the other bits and pieces in the infobox too. IMDB is the definitve page when it comes to films and actors. Not Wikipedia, hence why it should link to it. Lugnuts ( talk) 17:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}}
Copy {{ Infobox actor/sandbox}} to {{ Infobox actor}}.
Changes:
Wikipedian 14:51, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
As the discussion and minor edit conflict at Angelina Jolie has proven, the criteria "especially notable children" for the children field has given rise to blatant violations of the WP:NPOV policy because it requires a judgement call as to what constitutes notability. (Count the hundreds of news stories involving Jolie's adopted and natural children; does that constitute notability or not?) If this same song and dance is being played out elsewhere, then this criteria needs to be removed, or a less NPOV-violating alternative chosen. Or -- and this is my suggestion for a compromise -- only children who have Wikipedia articles are eligible to be listed, since the survival of such articles indicates group consensus that notability is satisfied, thereby avoiding the NPOV issue. 23skidoo ( talk) 00:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I realized that everyone here was agreed on anchoring things in the notability criteria, so I took a stab at it, basing my wording on Rossrs' suggestion. I changed both children and parents, since they both already ask for "notable" people only. I believe that this will satisfy everyone; please take a look at it in context: Template:Infobox_actor/doc#Parameters. -- Melty girl ( talk) 22:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Is the "partners" section really supposed to contain every single "partner" the person has had? For example, is the way Juliette Binoche's infobox looks correct? All Hallow's Wraith ( talk) 04:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
One new thought about this: I know it's a longer name, but perhaps this parameter should be renamed "domestic partner"? The documentation (which already mentions domestic partnership, btw) could specify that this means living together, not necessarily legal domestic partner status. And I think the presence of "domestic" could go a long way towards dissuading editors who don't read the documentation from adding every single boyfriend and girlfriend to the infobox. "Domestic partner" means someone you're shacking up with. -- Melty girl ( talk) 22:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I've noticed that this has been added into several articles, just when I thought there wasn't another thing that could possibly be added. I must have missed the discussion about it before it was added ;-) Does anyone else feel that this is superfluous to the infobox? Is it likely than many people would consider this one of the most important summarizing points about a person? Also, I've noticed that Bea Benaderet has not only a resting place, but a link to map co-ordinates. I can see that map coordinates might be helpful in the article about the cemetery itself, but unless it links to an aerial photo of Bea's grave, I think it's just one more line of clutter in her infobox and doesn't serve any useful purpose. Rossrs ( talk) 16:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I Strongly Object to having removed the IMDB link. Y'all are having this discussion on a particularly out of the way place where most editors don't look, and have decided to remove a parameter from roughly 11,000 articles - about 85% of the ones that use this page. Please replace the imdb_id parameter and bring this up in a wider forum, like RfC perhaps? Or even start at WP:FILM? --
SatyrTN (
talk |
contribs)
06:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Please fix this :- [[Image:|220px]]. This is been showing articles which has no images. Thank You.-- SkyWalker ( talk) 08:04, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
{{
editprotect}}
Please replace the link to
AFI Awards with
Australian Film Institute Awards. --
Kusunose (
talk)
02:32, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
Found this template when I noticed the fabulous awards change to the actor infobox. Nice job, Kudret abi! My question is this: we've got the Goya Awards in the template, so how's about Ireland's film and TV awards, the IFTAs? I know there's a generic area at the bottom, but it would be nice for Irish awardwinners' infoboxes to have an IFTA section with its own heading. Since the whole shebang is now collapsible, one more category isn't much of an issue, and it would remain blank for non-Irish actors anyway. -- Melty girl 15:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
I know there is plenty of discussion above about removing various fields from the infobox, but would anyone object to the addition of an "Occupation" field? I certainly think it would be useful to have this, given that the infobox is used for more than just actors (film directors, producers, etc), and also because many actors aren't just actors. Any thoughts? PC78 13:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
There is now an outdated version of this infobox template on the main project page. Seems like it should either be updated, or perhaps preferably, it should be replaced with a link to this article so that it can not go out of date again. -- Melty girl 16:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Discussion above indicates that nominations should not be included in the Awards section of the infobox. The practice is, however, widespread. One example: Johnny Depp, where it's very carefully set up. The only way I can think of to communicate the intention against nominations' inclusion would be to rename the section "Awards won". Otherwise, I think some of us will be removing nominations from infoboxes, and then others will come by and revert or re-add. Thoughts? -- Melty girl 02:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I applaud the idea with the multiple awards, as I already did the same overriding the original template sometime ago. ;) It also goes a long way in replacing the retarded adult actors box in the long run. However I reverted your change as it breaks hundreds of wiki articles including this one. Here's how it should look like. Notable roles belong on top, right now I'd actually have to completely give up the actors info box in current state and move all the cluttered code in the article.
By the way, the use of mellow yellow and purple could cause eye cancer for an European, ;) but who cares, as long as people cultivate articles like Donkey Punch we should give less than a damn about the American Wikipedia, no? I certainly do, you just messed with the wrong article. :)
It's also better to write occupation(s) as I also did in the past. :) If there's just one you could catch this special case with some effort. Besides in my humble opinion the idea to remove notable roles as being POV is hilarious at best. Harrison Ford is Indiana Jones, Harrison Ford is Han Solo but he's for sure not Jethro the Bus Driver -- just ask the kids ;) Also actors get awards for a specific(!) notable role... be it an Oscar, some obscure independent movie award or even an adult actors award, there is no question about wether this addition is useful or not. Maybe I should rephrase it to with good judgement there should be no question about wether this addition is useful or not -- but then again see above.
If you get enough Wikipedians to vote for a removal of "notable roles" (two code monkeys messing up templates is obviously not enough given they face 500 people who did add "notable roles" to actors biographies in the past... so the majority regards this information as useful, so do I btw) then be sure to change the template in a way it DOES NOT break other wiki articles, if you're not sure it does than DON'T change it... if you do anyway you force me to replace the template on some articles with completely template independent code because it saves me time, as I don't put templates on my watchlist and it's tedious to fix it every two month. Of course I want to encourage you to further improve the template, just not like that. You removed "notable roles" in articles people added it back in, what does that tell you? now you remove it in the template? I do like the idea with the expandable awards list but make it compatible first and do not use it to push your personal agenda hoping there will be somewhat less resistance cause people often don't mess with the templates themselves. I had to come here wondering who the heck broke the LA article again. While there may be room for discussing the "notable roles" thing in general there really is none for breaking articles just for some fancy effect. Add it back in, this time without breaking anything.
thanks for reading, good luck and many more good ideas in the future!
Hello to you three: pcr78, Melty girl and Kudret abi.
Mirwais just forgot to sign his post off, he did not want to be rude in any way! I fail to see how encouraging someone to improve a template is dismissive? But reverting a revert without even taking a look at what caused the problem first is something I would call hastily and bigheaded.
"I applaud the idea with the multiple awards" "thanks for reading, good luck and many more good ideas in the future!" --mirwais
yeah, really dismissive?
"Hello unsigned user" is dissmive, you just need to click on the history button to see who posted. especially people who seem to spend most of their time at wikipedia should know that. As for the other stuff posted
"the reality is that this field is wide open to abuse by users adding their favourite characters from their favourite films." --pcr78
the reality is that this field is wide open for users to supply useful information. Sooner or later there is a consensus about what roles are the most notable. the reality is also like what Mirwais said above. Most people including me do not know how to change such a template and wonder why suddenly everything is gone!?! You might not know this, but taking the history of the LA article this happend like the fourth time.
"The widespread use of the notable roles field is not a valid reason for keeping it" --Melty girl
Sure, having the personal preference of dicarding what many other users valued isn't either. It seems people really like this kind of useful information. If you want to see not useful information check the adult actors info box and have a good laugh... blood type, weight, hair lenght lol :=)
"I checked a number of articles after the changes were made, and all seemed to be OK" --pcr78
You did not check the LA Article like mirwais told you, instead you posted that there is no problem without checking the obvious one. when you discovered your error you silently fixed it, so that one other poster named Melty girl thought there is no problem.
"removed flag from infobox" --pcr78
and I care because? kindergarten. I guess it's how you deal with failure.
"how about instead of just reverting, leave the links here and we then we can have a look at it and attempt to fix it?"
Yes, that sounds reasonable. I am happy the article got fixed in some way. As for "thorough discussions and consensus" regarding the removal of notable roles. I don't see such a discussion taking place on this page. Just a bunch of very loose related answers not directly dealing with this topic in depth. On the other hand you have two strong keeps now to speak in your language hehe. I see no real arguments against keeping information about noteable roles, no wonder Melty girl has problems repeating all the heavy arguments against it.
I do not know if it is possible but you could make a poll on the start page or something. I really like to read information about what roles certain actors became famous for. it is something like greatest hits for musicans. Whatever you do, always think about who caused the problem to begin with and how the problem was dealt with "There is no problem". I believe it wasn't the article but the changes done to that template.
Now I have to sleep :) thank you all for fixing this, goodnight and bye bye -- PartySan CZ 23:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
" I did check the Laura Angel article once Mirwais drew my attention to it, since I took the time to fix some of the problems with the infobox" -PC87
Rehash of timeline
16:24, 3 August 2007 PC78 (There is no problem yadda yadda)
16:25, 3 August 2007 PC78 (Undid revision 148950085 by J mirwais (talk))
16:31, 3 August 2007 PC78 (updated infobox)
16:37, 3 August 2007 Melty girl (what PC78 said "I don't understand what you mean by it being "broken.")
.
.
.
02:09, 4 August 2007 PC78 (Talk | contribs) (112,097 bytes) (I partly fixed the problematic article)
Why play the blank-faced first place?
"I removed the flag simply because there's no reason for it to be there" -PC87
yes, of course. (insert Tony Montana smile here :) Just 2751 flags remaining, GO! GO! GO! :P
"If you want to keep it, you'll need to present a better argument than "I really like to read information about what roles certain actors became famous for." -PC87
Now that we have that out of the way I will give it a try.
In reply to Rossrs, Melty girl and PC78,
the notion that there were edit wars over certain actors infoboxes is pointless, as there are edit wars over articles probably as long as Wikipedia exists. The principle as I understood it is to always find a general consensus in such cases. The principle is not to stop anyone from starting a "probably controversial" article first place.
the notion that the fiercely fought over "notable roles field" was added without prior discussion is either of little importance given that almost all (that includes the controversial) wikipedia articles themselves are created without prior discussion.
Identifying and listing notable roles does not constitute a violation of WP:NPOV because if there is enough "accuracy and substantiation" in the main article to substantiate why a certain actor became notable with a certain role (success of the movie, awards, quotes etc.) then nothing speaks against putting these certain roles as an excerpt in an infobox for a quick overview.
The principle of WP:NPOV is not violated as these certain roles (think Harrison Ford, Sigourney Weaver etc...) represent a fairly significant unbiased view of what the general public sees as roles of importance and why these persons are regarded as artists rather than what one individual person sees in her/his personal point of view.
The decision wether or not a certain role is "notable" enough to be highlighted in the info box is solely based on wether it can be extracted from the article and it's sources. This decision has to be made on a case by case basis rather than erroneously stating a "notable roles field" violates WP:NPOV per se.
To give you another Captain Obvious example. If I go to the Sigourney Weaver article and add her role as a cookie munching kid in an old advert when she was like 5 years old as THE one notable role of her life, it won't take long people will correct me in this refering to WP:NPOV. Would I add her role as Ripley in Alien as "notable" I would for sure not have violated WP:NPOV.
It is a non-negotiable fact that general public regards certain persons as artists of significance based on certain roles they played. The infobox is a nice way to reflect this.
As an unrelated aside, speaking of navigation inside articles, I personally think it is very useful to link the "role" and the "movie title" as some kind of quickjump to the appropriate passages in longer articles, especially given the movie or fictional character has no article on Wikipedia itself.
czechmated! :P You can leave me a message on my talkpage once you figured how that happend ;) -- PartySan CZ 16:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
PC78 first.
A problem? moi? yep, it's sunday and i am running out of chocolate, but that's nothing
compared to you who has declared war on all flags ;) I will just sit back, fetch some popcorn and enjoy the show. :P
Okay speaking bluntly, I was a little bitchy about how you answered Mirwais who had fixed the template for me, that you then broke (and later fixed) again. I admit I might have pulled your chain for the tone of speech in your first post. I gave my last post a new heading in favor of a matter-of-fact tone and a caesura. Now everything looks fine again, so lets forget about that and move on. Despite the bitching I am really thankful that you and Kuderet Abi got that worked out and fixed what worked before. ;) About that flag thing, it was me who put it in the box some time ago as I like to decorate stuff.
I see we are now one step further then yesterday, as Rossrs and you realized that a notable roles field
does not have to be against WP:NPOV. That's something many posters either did not realize yet or try to challenge.
You say there might be a lack of objective criteria and we might need to break it down in babysteps for our fellow Wikipedians ;) *just teasing*
Well I suggest the following:
1. We re-establish the "notable roles field" as the claim that this field inherently breaks N:POV can no longer be sustained.
2. We start making a guideline and I try to help you with that as good as it is possible with my command
of the english language.
I can't help with the latter this month though as I won't spend any time with internet stuff the next few weeks. PC87, do not underestimate your fellow wikipedians! Most actor pages I visited looked quite good concerning the choice of notable roles in the info boxes. Of course this is just my very personal opinion as I am everything but an expert on American movie actors.
Also in the bold text above you find some answers as to where to start finding some objective criteria like success of the movie, awards, nominations, articles etc. , it might not always be as easy as with Christopher Lee, but I think we can dare to trust in sound judgement of those experts working on these articles, after all that's the idea Wikipedia was founded on.
I do think common sense is one - maybe unwritten - core principle of Wikipedia, still a guide with some kind of ruleset and good examples shouldn't hurt. You need to use common sense and some research/sorting out to begin with otherwise a project like Wikipedia would not work. Also you're not alone in this, you might get help.
Unfortunately the framework to identify a notable role can not just be stripped down to simple mnemotechnic sentences like Ariel, César and Oscar steal a golden raspberry of notable size from Granny Emmy in Cannes. Just because so and so got an Oscar nomination doesn't implie it's a noteable role. Such things are just clues. However if you have a bunch of clues covered at the same time in our yet to do guide then there's a pretty good chance you can add the role in question to the notable field given the article is based on reliable sources. That's how I have seen similiar things handled on Wikipedia in the past.
Hey Rossrs, I have not czechmated? :P that was a little joke on my part ;)
However there is an element of truth in this analogy. If someone says checkmate to me it can take a
loooong time before I wipe the board ;) I also might never play with you again ;))
Let me ask you a question. Is it a fact Harrison Ford is "a notable artist" who played "notable roles" or is it an opinion or a conclusion you drew from somehing. What if I would say something vicious like "Harrison Ford did not play any notable roles and he is not even an artist." Would that matter? hardly. You find the answer to " who is saying that these are his notable roles? " in the much too bold lines of my previous post. Just take a look wether it was a journalist, a fan, a director or a fellow Wikipedian... back? All choices were wrong? Yes, this was covered on a much greater scale in general public featuring objective evidence and significant media coverage based on numerous reliable sources.
The article on Harrison Ford refelects that stating "He is best known for his performances as the tough, wisecracking space pilot Han Solo in the Star Wars film series, and the adventurous archaeologist/action hero in the Indiana Jones film series." These notable roles are a fact no matter how you put it. The article used objective criteria to back that up like box-office hits, sales, an article in the Empire magazine, a Saturn Award for Best Actor (Raiders of the Lost Ark) etc. If we could not substantiate these claims with facts we would have to delete this sentence, luckily we can.
You argued: "if the infobox records that his notable roles are Han Solo and Indiana Jones, who is saying that these are his notable roles?. The correct answer to the question is "Wikipedia" or perhaps "the last person who edited this article". That's not acceptable"
Maybe you now realize you created some circular argument par excellence and drew a wrong conclusion ;)
You also said: "It is not the job of Wikipedia or any of it's editors to interpret data to reach a conclusion and then present the conclusion as a fact. "
Well, this is not the way it works given the notable role is a fact in itself evident from the sources. If you can't backup with sources why a certain role is notable you can't put it in the notable roles field.
You see the people working on the Harrison Ford article did their best to point out a notable role of importance. Highlighting such roles as an excerpt in an infobox for a quick overview can be quite useful.
Of course some might say this particular example is blatantly obvious or whatever as it is part of modern pop-culture, now what if I want to know something about Zarah Leander, Greta Garbo or Hugo Haas. Bang! I have to read the entire article and will probably miss the beginning of a great Lou Scheimer He-Man cartoon ;)
We should also remember that wiki articles are not absolute in any way and often a work in progress. Just because one notable role might be missing in some cases wouldn't break the info box or misinform someone who risks a sketchy view on the box rather then reading the article in depth. Not having any evident, well sourced, notable roles at all in this little box would be a loss for me. The more the less I know about the actor. There will always be actors where this field doesn't make any sense given their filmography - that's why it's optional.
Kind regards -- PartySan CZ 19:11, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
In response to Rossrs.
Well, I'm sorry I missunderstood you. My bad. I try to sum up my last post dry-as-dust this time. ;) Which is against the nature of every joke cookie. :P
Since you chose to not answer my question, I will also supply the answers, as I would give them, for this little rundown.
1. You argued: "if the infobox records that his notable roles are Han Solo and Indiana Jones, who is saying that these are his notable roles?. The correct answer to the question is "Wikipedia" or perhaps "the last person who edited this article".
Completely wrong. Please see my post above for detailed information.
Harrison Ford | |
---|---|
File:Harrison Ford IJ4.jpg |
2. You said: "A "notable role" is not a fact, but an opinion or a conclusion"
Wrong, since it can be a fact as you provide sources.
However it can be just an opinion lacking sources. A conclusion is everything including that source 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 = FACT. You make conclusions whenever you start a new wiki all the time.
3. Explain the difference between this:
A FACT -> Harrison Ford's most notable roles to date are Indiana Jones and Han Solo 1 2 3 4
1 source
2 source
3 source
4 source
and that ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------->
How does a fact violate N:POV? once you put it in the box right next to the article. The answer is very easy by the way...
IT DOES NOT. What is a fact outside the box is still a fact inside the box.
4. You said: "you still have not addressed the issue of taking discussion of notable roles in the article, where I agree it is acceptable, into the infobox, where I still believe it to be unacceptable."
The discussion of notable roles STAYS in the article, the info box is merely an extract of the information inside the articles main text.
As for noteable roles being unacceptable in the infobox.
why?
My argument for keeping the notable roles information as a truncated copy in the infobox is actually very easy: IT IS USEFUL.
I think the box itself was invented as a visually useful table for extra information around a picture. Even the oral pleadings what belongs in such a box and what does not is completely on trial and not a non-negotiable policy by order of the King :) (at least that's what I think).
Thank you for joining the discussion Kudret abi,
The same question for you: Can a notable role be a fact? If you answer no, or in most cases most likely no then it makes sense to remove it from the box. If you say yes, then we have a problem (nah, not really) ;)
The question for me is, shall we remove this field because it could be disputed in certain cases wether a certain role for an actor is notable and I agree such dicussions should take place inside the article for a reason. As stated above I see it merley as an excerpt of information already in the article. In cases where the article doesn't evidently support it I wouldn't use the notable roles field. Other wikipedians however may, which is when a problem could arrise. Is this problem outweighted by the "usefulness"? In my opinion and maybe in the opinion of many who filled this field with information it is.
Kind regards -- PartySan CZ 09:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
First Rossrs, No worries! I did enjoy the discussion with you and this will be my last post on this too, as I also think we spin circles here, which is never a good sign... actually I now hate the word not(e)able. I never want to write it again ;)
Please don't feel bad or sorry the slightest as I really think I need to jolly you up now being to harsh :/ I hope I can contribute to some less fought over stuff on wikipedia somewhere in the future, maybe something you can actual enjoy rather then argue over - let's see ;)
In response to PC87,
"about the flags... We certainly shouldn't be adding them to articles simply because we "like to decorate stuff". :) "
Well, I obviously didn't wrote that because I couldn't think of a better argument. :) "to declare war on all flags" was just a wordplay which struck me, so I had to use it ;). For me flags are a nice visualization, as commonly used with ID Cards on sport and music events. Yes, the flag is there, and you know what? People like it ;) Well maybe not here on this wikipedia discussion site but in general. Just like the info box itself is nothing more than a visualization help. Good luck with the removal though ;) Wait! You forgot to remove the flag from the Harrison Ford article! how could that happen? ;)
"What you want to do is put all these things together and draw conclusions from them, but unfortunatly this is original research"
Original research is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories.
now let's see what have I written before...
"this was covered on a much greater scale in general public featuring objective evidence and significant media coverage based on numerous reliable sources."
Guidelines as I have suggested (and you called for) are used to define notability for example. Take a look, to get a quick grasp how this is different from original research. In such a guide I wouldn't advise anyone to use any unpublished sources on the contrary. By working together I meant people should help each other to find good sources where is need. If we can then identify and highlight a notable role in the main article as factual information we should be able to include it also in the infobox. That's what I meant by "What is a fact outside the box is still a fact inside the box."
"Finally, you've been using Harrison Ford as an example to support your own position, but if you look at the article there were actually seven notable roles listed in the infobox. I'd like to see you apply your reasoning to some less obvious examples."
I already thought about that before...
1. There will always be actors where this field doesn't make any sense given their filmography - that's why it's optional.
2. The question for me is, shall we remove this field because it could be disputed in certain cases wether a certain role for an actor is notable and I agree such dicussions should take place inside the article for a reason. As stated above I see it merley as an excerpt of information already in the article. In cases where the article doesn't evidently support it I wouldn't use the notable roles field. Other wikipedians however may, which is when a problem could arrise. Is this problem outweighted by the "usefulness"? In my opinion and maybe in the opinion of many who filled this field with information it is.
PC87, as long as we assume notable roles can't be facts your argumentation to remove the field is (partly) sound. However that's exactly where we differ. On the one hand you do not allow me to use facts and guides that define notability as well as notable roles and call it "original research" on the other hand you claim to agree with Rossr, who however, if I got it right this time, agreed with me at least in one point: that a notable role can be included in the main article, based on what I have posted above without violating N:POV. Also Kudret abi currently thinks that "notable roles" can be included in the main wiki article as they get identified, he didn't give any clues as how to do that though.
So now we should really focus on the notable roles field. If I am the only voice who states that a notable role can indeed be a fact then you can leave the template in current state until someone notices the error. Maybe I find a big fault in my own argumentation too. Have you czeched yours? ;)
some random stuff for all of you to think about (no need to answer, just stuff I thought about):
Who says Harrison Ford is an artist? Who says he is a notable artist? Was it the last wikipedian who edited his wiki? Is it a fact Harrison Ford is "a notable artist" who played "notable roles" or is it an opinion or a conclusion we drew from somehing?
Awards and nominations. How many of these are required? Why do we use awards to define notability on some actors. Are all awards equal, or are some to be considered more important than others? Am I (or my role) notable with just one Award or are more required? How successful is a film required to be? Being a notable artist is not a fact, but an opinion or a conclusion. A "notable role" is not a fact, but an opinion or a conclusion" I stop here before anyone gets dizzy ;)
Kind regards -- PartySan CZ 18:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Before finally bowing out of this disscussion I will try to answer PC87 one more time ;) PC87, "significant media coverage" as stated above (two times ;)) means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. The only research you have to do is finding these sources first place and evaluate wether they are reliable.
I also talked about objective evidence which is information which can be proven by anyone to be true, based on facts that substantiate. That's not POV at all.
Following your reasoning I could also say "I find this whole idea of "notable artists" to be POV and subjective, and I believe any guideline will suffer from the same problem, since any criteria will be completely arbitrary. " yet people made a helpful guide for others and reached a consensus about what makes a "notable artist".
If we can define notability we can also define what is a notable role.
What we can present as evident factual information in the main article, we can also put in the infobox without hesitation.
Sure, you shouldn't put some random roles of an actor inside the infobox based on personal preference. Once you put a role in the infobox that isn't even mentioned in the wiki article you very likely did something wrong or are working on a stub ;) To give people guidance in which direction to look for references one could create a list of clues like awardlists, box office sales, published books, film after market around a character and whatnot. People working on actors biographies already do such an evaluation when writing the main wiki article text. The infobox is not the place where such a discussion takes place, in my opinion it should merely reflect what's already discussed and backed up inside the main article.
The notable roles field inside the infobox can then provide useful inter-Wiki links to other articles, besides giving a quick overview.
As stated numerous times I think "notable roles" can indeed be verified as fact, while you think they can't. I am not sure about Kudret abi's position on this.
Should there ever be a majority following my or another reasoning in favor of keeping the "notable roles" field I'd prefer to also have this field "collapsible" in the same way as the Awards.
On a personal note, PC87, though we had what I would call a bad start in the discussion I think we now have build a pretty decent framework other wikipedians can use to form an opinion about the "notable roles field". So it might be the best for the current debaters to wait for other opinions since we reached kind of a deadlock. Kind regards -- PartySan CZ 20:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
I actually just popped onto this talk page to see what happened to this field, and apparently it's been a point of contention. I think it's valuable because with many of the lesser known actors, especially television actors, it's sometimes the one of the only pieces of the infobox one can actually fill out. As for larger NPOV issues, sure, they can be an issue, but I think in most cases, people's most notable roles can be discerned. matt91486 08:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I should like to make the proposal that in cases such as the Template :Infobox actor, where a small number of editors have removed the notable roles field from the Infobox, which is on thousands of articles that a notice should be placed on Wikipedia's Main Page, asking everyone for their views - a poll.
It is totally wrong that the small number of editors who visit this Talk Page should take decisions on articles used by the vast majority of registered editors. There are more than 5 million registered editors on Wikipedia.
If there is a proper poll that approves this change then popular consent can be claimed, if, however, there is no poll then the decision to remove the Notable Roles field will simply be seen as the peremptory action of a small, unrepresentative clique.
Vorrock 14:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
i have a suggestion. since this template is being used for not only actors, but directors and producers as well, i believe it should be changed to "Infobox hollywood" and the fields should facilitate all the major figure types in the motion-picture industry. I think the "occupation" field is a good start, but it could go much further. -- PopeFauveXXIII 04:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
It seems to me that, if the contentious awards sections were changed, such that the award titles were also data fields, and made more generic, this could be merged into {{ Infobox person}}. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 16:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't the
! <tr ...
lines in the "awards" section be changed to something like
{{!}}style="text-align:left;" colspan="2"{{!}}
? Isn't that a little cleaner and more consistent? (and portable to other stable MediaWikis) -- TedPavlic 18:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
and how come it's not working anymore? Ospinad 20:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
This edit introduced a formatting glitch to the infobox: the text colspan="2" style=" text-align:center; font-size:100%;"
appears next to the image. Can an admin please revert or repair the edit? --
Muchness
08:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
{{
image class}}
it was fine, but when documenting that template I accidentally added a newline, breaking this template. It should be fine now.--
Patrick
09:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi Patrick, can you explain what was the purpose of this change? It looks like something to do with placeholders, but I am not totally clear. Thanks, -- Kudret abi 02:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}} Will somebody please change the fistful on instances of
to
the value of an html width-attribute is in pixels by default, unlike css where the px-suffix is correct. As it is, this is a syntax error. -- Jack Merridew 13:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}} Merge Birthname with Born.
Change:{{!}}-
{{#if:{{{birthname<includeonly>|</includeonly>}}} |
{{!}}width="85"{{!}} '''Birth name'''{{!}}{{!}} {{{birthname}}}
}}
{{!}}-
{{#if:{{{birthdate<includeonly>|</includeonly>}}} {{{birthplace|}}} {{{location|}}} |
{{!}}width="85"{{!}} '''Born''' {{!}}{{!}} {{#if:{{{birthdate<includeonly>|</includeonly>}}}|{{{birthdate}}}<br />}} {{{birthplace<includeonly>|</includeonly>{{{location|}}}}}}
}}
To:{{!}}-
{{#if:{{{birthname<includeonly>|</includeonly>}}} {{{birthdate|}}} {{{birthplace|}}} {{{location|}}} |
{{!}}width="85"{{!}} '''Born''' {{!}}{{!}} {{#if:{{{{birthname<includeonly>|</includeonly>}}}|{{{birthname}}}}}<br />{{{birthdate<includeonly>|</includeonly>}}}<br />{{{birthplace|{{{location<includeonly>|</includeonly>}}}}}}
}}
Please rv it to the current version if it doesn't work. Wikipedian 13:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Question: should the first occupation be capitalized? I wouldn't think so, and the documentation seems to indicate no, but not too clearly. But other users keep capitalizing it, so I'm not sure. Whatever the answer is, the documentation should probably specify. Thanks -- Melty girl 18:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
i have changed the colour of the awards fields over in Template:Infobox Comedian from this to this to match that of the infobox header. however, the default font gets drowned in the darker hue. it would be great if someone could lend a hand. -- emerson7 | Talk 15:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
<span style="color:White>[[Academy Award]]s</span>
I would be good to see how much they were earning for their most recent film and their total worth. I propose estimated earnings and estimated career earnings fields. John 15:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Can some thought be given to adding a "nationality" parameter to this infobox, in line with other infoboxes such as {{ Infobox Person}} and {{ Infobox Writer}}? Cheers, Jacklee 11:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I apologize if this has already been discussed before; I don't usually come here. I use the template quite a lot and the Gemini Awards don't show in the box like the rest of them. See for example Torri Higginson and Nicholas Campbell. Could someone kindly fix this, please ? Thank you, have a nice day. Rosenknospe 11:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
{{ Infobox film}} supports IMDb film profiles using imdb_id parameter. I'd like to see the corresponding name behavior supported here and have implemented imdb_id in {{ Infobox actor/sandbox}} with test cases provided for review. The differences are here. – Conrad T. Pino 12:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I think it will be good idea to support IMDB for actors too. 65.166.51.6 18:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
The documented geminiawards parameter fails with {{ Infobox film}} due to spelling errors within the template, spelled as geminiaward without the ending s. – I suggest revising the template to agree with the documentation as demonstrated in {{ Infobox actor/sandbox}} with test cases provided for review. The differences are here. – Conrad T. Pino 13:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
{{ Infobox actor/sandbox}} contains conditional logic to support full copy and paste between the {{ Infobox actor/sandbox}} and {{ Infobox actor}}. Selective {{ Infobox actor}} edits to adopt new {{ Infobox actor/sandbox}} code are no longer required. – Conrad T. Pino 07:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
Please copy the entire {{
Infobox actor/sandbox}} into {{
Infobox actor}} without modification.
The functional changes are:
Test cases for {{ Infobox actor}} and {{ Infobox actor/sandbox}} are availabe for review at {{ Infobox actor/testcases}}.
Conrad T. Pino 07:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Are these sections necessary to this infobox? For starters, "parents" is almost totally pointless (their names are often not even mentioned in the article itself to begin with) and only makes this infobox look more ungainly (see for example Richard Jenkins). "Children" can also stretch on for too long. Neither one of these fields has anything to do with the person's notability as an actor or even to their basic biographical stats. Anyone agree and thinks they should be removed? All Hallow's Wraith 06:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
According to that template's page, there is supposed to be a discussion here about merging it into this template. Anybody? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 12:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
For what it's worth to anybody, I support that merge (and/or redirection) of that template into this one; that template also has less than 250 instances in use. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 13:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Is it necessary to have an IMDB link in the infobox? It is customary already to have a link to the IMDB in the external links section (and is done so for practically every single actor), so I think it's kind of pointless to (presumably?) have it included twice in an article, especially since it's not even considered a WP:RS in the first place. All Hallow's Wraith ( talk) 09:30, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
The change was discussed in Internet Movie Database link above. The imdb_id parameter is optional; it's omission hides all visual effects produced when present. Since templates are optional they're an exceedingly poor standards enforcement mechanism. – Conrad T. Pino ( talk) 22:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I added a link to this discussion (which appears only on pages where the link is used), so that we can hear more opinions.-- Patrick ( talk) 09:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't see how this is any different from having the IMBD link for a film in the film infobox and having the link in the external links section for the same film article. Def. keep in the infobox for me. Lugnuts ( talk) 10:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Which goes back to my point of why have it in the Film infobox too? Someone said it's been there since 2004 in that one. If it's duplicating info, then why have the infobox fullstop? I can find the date of birth of the person in the article and all the other bits and pieces in the infobox too. IMDB is the definitve page when it comes to films and actors. Not Wikipedia, hence why it should link to it. Lugnuts ( talk) 17:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}}
Copy {{ Infobox actor/sandbox}} to {{ Infobox actor}}.
Changes:
Wikipedian 14:51, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
As the discussion and minor edit conflict at Angelina Jolie has proven, the criteria "especially notable children" for the children field has given rise to blatant violations of the WP:NPOV policy because it requires a judgement call as to what constitutes notability. (Count the hundreds of news stories involving Jolie's adopted and natural children; does that constitute notability or not?) If this same song and dance is being played out elsewhere, then this criteria needs to be removed, or a less NPOV-violating alternative chosen. Or -- and this is my suggestion for a compromise -- only children who have Wikipedia articles are eligible to be listed, since the survival of such articles indicates group consensus that notability is satisfied, thereby avoiding the NPOV issue. 23skidoo ( talk) 00:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I realized that everyone here was agreed on anchoring things in the notability criteria, so I took a stab at it, basing my wording on Rossrs' suggestion. I changed both children and parents, since they both already ask for "notable" people only. I believe that this will satisfy everyone; please take a look at it in context: Template:Infobox_actor/doc#Parameters. -- Melty girl ( talk) 22:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Is the "partners" section really supposed to contain every single "partner" the person has had? For example, is the way Juliette Binoche's infobox looks correct? All Hallow's Wraith ( talk) 04:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
One new thought about this: I know it's a longer name, but perhaps this parameter should be renamed "domestic partner"? The documentation (which already mentions domestic partnership, btw) could specify that this means living together, not necessarily legal domestic partner status. And I think the presence of "domestic" could go a long way towards dissuading editors who don't read the documentation from adding every single boyfriend and girlfriend to the infobox. "Domestic partner" means someone you're shacking up with. -- Melty girl ( talk) 22:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I've noticed that this has been added into several articles, just when I thought there wasn't another thing that could possibly be added. I must have missed the discussion about it before it was added ;-) Does anyone else feel that this is superfluous to the infobox? Is it likely than many people would consider this one of the most important summarizing points about a person? Also, I've noticed that Bea Benaderet has not only a resting place, but a link to map co-ordinates. I can see that map coordinates might be helpful in the article about the cemetery itself, but unless it links to an aerial photo of Bea's grave, I think it's just one more line of clutter in her infobox and doesn't serve any useful purpose. Rossrs ( talk) 16:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I Strongly Object to having removed the IMDB link. Y'all are having this discussion on a particularly out of the way place where most editors don't look, and have decided to remove a parameter from roughly 11,000 articles - about 85% of the ones that use this page. Please replace the imdb_id parameter and bring this up in a wider forum, like RfC perhaps? Or even start at WP:FILM? --
SatyrTN (
talk |
contribs)
06:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Please fix this :- [[Image:|220px]]. This is been showing articles which has no images. Thank You.-- SkyWalker ( talk) 08:04, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
{{
editprotect}}
Please replace the link to
AFI Awards with
Australian Film Institute Awards. --
Kusunose (
talk)
02:32, 25 December 2007 (UTC)