Template talk:Infobox person Archive 8

Matt Harding
Matt Harding
	Matt Harding in Yoyogi Park, Tokyo, Japan on January 27, 2007.
Born	Matthew Harding; September 27, 1976 (age 49)
Internet Information
Web host	YouTube
Meme	Where the Hell is Matt?
Web alias	Matt
Website	http://www.wherethehellismatt.com/

This is an archive of past discussions about Template:Infobox person. 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 5

Archive 6

→

Infobox mass murderer

As with {{Infobox criminal}} (see above); so should {{Infobox mass murderer}} be merged here. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:54, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Upscaling of portraits in infoboxes

Some infoboxes have pictures whose native sizes are less than the default, 225px. Others have a set image size that is still too big. This is a Bad Thing, IMHO. To quote from the article on image scaling: "Enlarging an image (upsampling or interpolating) is generally less common. The main reason for this is that in "zooming" an image, it is not possible to discover any more information in the image than already exists, and image quality inevitably suffers." Now, obviously, there are exceptions; something like the Flag of France scales fine to any size. Detailed pictures, such as photographs or good paintings, do not... which almost all the images used by this infobox are. Donald Kohn, a recent example, is to the right: the difference should be obvious.

You can see more examples at Miep Gies and Martti Ahtisaari.jpg. Note that even in the case of Maati, the upscaling is still quite noticeable even though the size difference is tiny (207->225). The original image is notably sharper, while the 225px image is blurry and seems out of focus. The upscaled picture of Miep Gies just looks terrible, on the other hand.

Anyway. Ideally, the template would say "225px or native resolution, whichever is smaller," but I suspect this is not technically feasible. Instead, I was thinking of going to Wikipedia:Bot requests and requesting a bot to look for images in this infobox that were being upscaled, and change the imagesize to the native size. However, I figured I should probably check here first to make sure there was consensus for such a change. Thoughts? SnowFire (talk) 22:58, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan! Airplaneman ✈ 23:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- P.S. Fixed syntax of upscaled "yuck" image to display the caption (added the parameter "thumb") Airplaneman ✈ 23:48, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Nationality, religion, ethnicity

See here. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:56, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Denomination

{{editprotected}} Please add:

| label18    = Workplace
| data18     = {{{workplace|}}}

| label39    = Denomination
| data39     = {{{denomination|}}}
| class39    = category

and renumber subsequent items. This will allow {{Infobox Christian biography}} to be redirected here, being the only parameters in that template not already here. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:39, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

How is "workplace" being used currently? Also, can we just reuse Religion for Denomination, or are two fields really necessary? The Christian biography template doesn't have a religion field since they are all Christian, hence, it would seem as though Denomination would be appropriate to put in this field as well? Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:18, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Denomination is a sub-division of religion; and not the same thing. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:38, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware. So, how about making it a sub-field of religion. Also, it seems like "workplace" is redundant to "hometown" or "residence" or something. I am all for adding new fields, but we should make sure there isn't an existing field which could serve the same purpose. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:28, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

A sub-field would be OK, I suppose. From the documentation, workplace would be for things like "Foobar College" or "St Tiggywinkle's Abbey". Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:35, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

In those cases, it would seem to go well with occupation, "professor at Foobar college" or "Monk at St Twiggywinkle's Abbey", but I could see there could be a reason to for yet another field. I may add a tracking category to the Christian biography template to get an idea of the current use in practice. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:16, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Not done for now: it seems this matter is still under discussion so I have deactivated for now. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:37, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I just added the Denomination field, but I did not add the workplace, since the Christian biography articles don't actually need it. I also made some other minor changes, like allowing for either underscores or spaces in the field names (it was a bit of both before), and support for upright images in the default image size spec. This may need to be adjusted. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:26, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

class=label

This template currently applies | class7 = label (as part of the hCard microformat). Can someone please assist with code to make that not happen if a death-date is present? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:36, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Done. Let me know if it didn't work (or if I caused more problems). Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:53, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Working well. Thank you. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:36, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

{{editrequest}} The code currently in the sandbox will hide residence (label7 class7 and data7) if the person has died (has a date of death or place of death). It should be noted, however, that class7 would be empty if the residence field is empty. See the code in {{Infobox/row}}. –droll [chat] 22:54, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you - but Plastikspork just hid the class; and we should;t be hiding the label or data. I've seen empty classes elsewhere on Wikipedia; they're valid, but ignored, in HTML, so cause no issues. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:01, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the question is if you want to entirely disable the "residence" field if the subject is dead? I can see why this would be desirable, but that would be a bit of a larger change in function, rather than just tweaking a few classes. What do you think? Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:08, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Checking the documentation, it does say the residence can include were the subject "resided", so I would suppose it would be valid to have residence for a deceased person. Unless, of course, the documentation is incorrect? Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:10, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Check the HTML source for the infobox on Albert Einstein, there are plenty of empty classes, and the residence field is being used. So, I would say, that the current version should be fine. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:14, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Plastikspork's edit looks good to me. I probably presumed to much in my version. –droll [chat] 00:10, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm thinking that if a residence is specified (even if the person has died) the class should be label. Also what a person's residence was while they were alive becomes their "former residence" upon their death, IMHO. To me listing the residence (without a qualifier) of a dead person is at least ambiguous. For ghosts it might be different. ;-) –droll [chat] 00:28, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

The only purpose of class="label" is to denote, in the emitted hCard microformat, that the data entered as |residence= is the subject's address. That's no longer the case, if they're dead. Perhaps the value of the |label7= should change to "Former residence", if the subject is dead? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:22, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Honorifics before and after the name

For the standard person infobox (as opposed to certain political etc infoboxes there is no facility for putting sombody's prenominal styles and titles and postnominal letters. Just say that you wanted to create an infobox for the Honourable John Smith, MBE. What I would ideally like would be something like:

The Honourable
John Smith
MBE

(Obviously I'd like it centre aligned, but my wiki skills aren't quite up to it!)

Using certain office-holder/politician templates this would be possible. See for example John Buchan, 1st Baron Tweedsmuir. Now, supposing the Hon John Smith, MBE is not a politician etc but is just a notable younger son of an earl who has been awarded an MBE, wouldn't it be nice to be able to record this information in the infobox for his article? The new fields (or whatever they're called) could very easily be added to the person infobox template just by copying and pasting the necessary material from existing infoboxes. However, I don't know how to do this myself, or even whether a non-admin can do it.--Oxonian2006 (talk) 21:56, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

By the way, I have tried to create the same effect by using </br><small>xxxxx</small> in the name field but the small formatting doesn't come out small.--Oxonian2006 (talk) 21:59, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd support the addition of this functionality, through the use of separate parameters modelled on those in {{Infobox officeholder}}. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:57, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Any idea how we'd go about getting this done?--Oxonian2006 (talk) 23:05, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Like this:

{{editprotected}}

Change:

| above      = <includeonly>{{{name|{{PAGENAME}}}}}</includeonly>
| aboveclass = fn

to:

| above      = {{#if:{{{honorific-prefix|}}}|<span class="honorific-prefix" style="font-size: small">{{{honorific-prefix}}}</span>&nbsp;}}<span class="fn">{{{name|{{PAGENAME}}}}}</span>{{#if:{{{honorific-suffix|}}}|&nbsp;<span class="honorific-suffix" style="font-size: small">{{{honorific-suffix}}}</span>}}

Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:42, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, this has been done, although with some spacing tweaks (move the space outside of the if statement since it is stripped by the parser). Would it be better to have the prefix and suffix on newlines? For example, this is how it appears on John Buchan, 1st Baron Tweedsmuir. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:58, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes please - separate lines was what I had in mind, so that it has line 1: prefix (e.g. The Rt Hon), line 2: name, line 3: suffix (e.g. KBE), so yes, just like in the Lord Tweedsmuir example. However, I am still rather confused because when I look at the template the changes do not appear to have been implemented even though the history page indicates that they have.--Oxonian2006 (talk) 01:45, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Can you give me an example of an article, which is using this template, where you would like to put the titles? I will add the line breaks. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I lifted the code straight from {{Infobox officeholder}}; see, for example, Louis Mountbatten, 1st Earl Mountbatten of Burma and how it renders there. I hadn't realised that the line breaks and <small> are entered as part of the data - a really bad idea. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Portal display

Should this template include a provision for displaying a portal, like that in {{Infobox writer}}? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 09:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I personally think the portal should go at the bottom in the 'See also' section. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

In that case, should they be moved out of {{Infobox writer}}, for consistency? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 09:29, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:49, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Default image size

The current default image size is "225x180px". I have seen other infoboxes using "270x250px" or "280x220px", which are both a bit larger. Is there any desire to increase the default? Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:29, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Image size is borked!

Per Plastikspork's edits of today the image size in the infobox now appears to be borked (default is exceptionally tiny and you don't appear to be able to override it). Can someone look into this - and if it's not the template, tell me why the image at Emilie Gamelin is so frikkin' tiny suddenly? - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:15, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Fixed it - partly your problem, partly mine. The box there had purported to be controlling image size with the field image_width, which, although supported by other infobox templates, is not supported by yours. When Plastikspork changed the default image size, it therefore changed the size at Emilie Gamelin, and image_width did nothign to reset it. I've changed the field there to image_size with the value of 200 and it now works fine. - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:21, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I changed it to 280x220px, which is part of the reason why I was asking above. Is there a good default to use for the image size? Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:31, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
I personally like a width of 200 pixels but I haven't even put my foot in the realm of templates prior to needing to come here; all I ask is that when you template people sort it out you document it on the talk page so I don't have another panic attack when all my biographies suddenly look different overnight without anyone having edited them. :-) - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
The size of 280x220px basically means no wider than 280px and no taller than 220px. The reason for restricting the height is to deal with one like Vivica A. Fox, where to set the width at 200px would make the image way to long. Of course, this is just the default we are talking about, and you can override it (as you discovered). Any tweaks that are made to the default won't change ones where the size has been specified. I'm just searching for a sensible default. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

The default size is still less than 200, I thought it was going to be fixed at 200 px? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:29, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes is needs fixing. When I looked at the code about one week ago I think that the default size was for both the horizontal and vertical. I think that the default size need only be set for the horizontal at about 225px to 240px depending on preference, and the vertical will look after itself. It currently says; "{{{imagesize|}}}}}}}}}|280x220px}}|alt={{{alt|}}}]]}}", which does not cater for tall narrow images well. I think that it probably work better with "{{{imagesize|}}}}}}}}}|225px}}|alt={{{alt|}}}]]}}", if the number of brackets is correct. These templates are now protected and ordinary signed in users can not fix it now. I think that this template could be protected at a lower level now. Snowman (talk) 17:44, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree. The current set-up is forcing images to be narrower than 200px, which is sub-optimal. I think Snowman's solution ought to be given a try; the only downside would be for large, very narrow images (which would be unusual in biographical articles that are not David Bowie). Skomorokh 12:39, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Based on the above discussion, could you remove the vertical limit? The coding should be clear from Snowman's preceding post. Thank you, Skomorokh 12:39, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Done. Although I still think you should specify some kind of maximum height to cope with strange shaped images. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:34, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Can't the default image size just be set to frameless? That way, editors who want bigger images get them, and undersized images aren't upsized. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:28, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Frameless seems like a good idea. According to Help:Images this also allow the user to specify the size in his/her preferences. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 14:52, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Right. Sandbox updated. Fancy having a look? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:14, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Should be a no-brainer, we're using this elsewhere without problems. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 11:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Done. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 15:48, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Modules

I was thinking today that it might be useful to support "subtemplates" which can be used as modules with this one, much in the same way that {{extra chronology}} is used to add information to {{infobox album}}. We already have an undocumented "misc" field, which could be used to facilitate this. For example, there is currently a TFD open to merge {{Infobox Internet celebrity}} with this box, but it would seem a bit much to add all the fields from that template to this one. Instead, one could create some sort of additional subtemplate, which only contained the additional fields, and those could be chained at the bottom. I have provided a proof of concept of this to the right, but without using a template. However, the part that is wedged into the misc field could be in its own template, much in the same way that {{extra chronology}} works. I'm not sure what the misc field is being used for now, but I added a tracking category to see if I can get some examples. Any thoughts on this idea? I could see this facilitating the merger of many biographical boxes with this one. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:43, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I should note that the choice of the {{Infobox Internet celebrity}} box is perhaps a bit weaker than other examples, but it seemed like a good one to use for a demonstration, given the current TFD. Other examples could be say {{Infobox scientist}} or {{Infobox writer}} or any of the ones that have been proposed to be merged above. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:55, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that sounds like a great idea. --Joshua Issac (talk) 23:06, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

It's a good idea and will help simplify the current array of choices for people infoboxes. Airplaneman ✈ 23:45, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Would the sub-template be part of the same HTML table as the main infobox? How would that be achieved? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:08, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking it would be achieved in the same way that {{extra chronology}}, but the question is what would be the naming convention. I suppose one could start {{infobox person/academic}}, {{infobox person/internet}}, ... or say {{extra academic info}}, {{extra internet info}}, ... What do you think? Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 15:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

One problem is that, as shown in the source for the example above, this ends up being pretty hackish, with empty table rows and the like added. Were that to be resolved, I can see it being pretty trivial to add a child=yes parameter to {{infobox}} which would work like the same attrib in {{navbox}} and would allow for existing templates to be migrated pretty easily. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:31, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Right, the example is a hack for demonstration, the actual implementation would be less hackish. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 14:06, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

As an update, the details for this have been worked out, {{infobox}} now has a child parameter for this purpose, and {{infobox person/Internet info}} now uses it in deployed articles. So the path is clear to migrating other templates to match. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:39, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Purpose of merging templates

Some excellent work has been done to make this happen and the technical fix is elegant and robust. However, I have some qualms about whether this is the best way to proceed. In fully merging templates, two important things are achieved: the choice offered to editors (and thus the variety they have to remember) is reduced; and all the fields are available for all subjects (so a chef who writes books is catered for; as is a criminal professor). I am concerned that, while the latter might still be technically possible, we are either not removing, or adding to, the barriers between editors and simple editing, What are the advantages of using sub-templates in this way, over straightforward merging? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:22, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

For a start, it means not having to fill out an editprotected request for every single change to a biography's infobox layout. Secondly, modularisation makes for more maintainable code. Indeed, I can see an argument the other way - making {{infobox person}} more modular than it currently is, allowing such details as education or present occupation and such to be dispatched to a sub-template and only included when pertinent to a particular domain. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:18, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I imagine that the sub-templates will end up protected anyway. I can see an argument for the kind of modularisation you describe, with (say) a 'career' sub-template, but not by job-type. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:53, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, they will most likely end up protected if the transclusion count is high. Another advantage is that it will allow for a sort of {{Uses infobox person}}, where this template is a backend. The advantage here is that (hopefully) there will be list redundancy in microformat classes, since most would be covered by the top level person template. Finally, the problem with just adding more and more rows to this template is that it becomes somewhat bloated, and there is some desire to reduce the number of rows used by {{Infobox}}, see Template talk:Infobox, and this would help with that problem. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:03, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Additionally (and this is another felicitous outcome of using an {{infobox}}-based solution for the sub-templates), should we decide to go for a monolithic template in the end then the work required to complete the merge from that point (assuming that the mergees had been subclassed) is trivial. This is a very useful halfway house. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:58, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

OK. Thanks, both, for answering my questions. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:30, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Could someone explain in non-technical language what the merge/module proposal is, and what effect it would have on the appearance of articles? SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 22:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Basically the idea is that instead of having completely separate templates for every type of biography, you'd just have {{infobox person}} and then little modules such as {{infobox person/Internet info}} which "plug into" it to provide details specific to the article. If you look at Jonti Picking, for instance, the rows near the bottom are provided by the module. In most cases the change to output would be minimal or nonexistent, hopefully. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:55, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, Chris. I was concerned in case it was a proposal to have multiple infobox modules in different sections of articles. I've seen that done before, where someone had infobox person at the top of the article, then in a section about his brief football career there was infobox footballer, and I wasn't keen on it. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 23:29, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

It actually helps resolve that as well, because if a person has numerous roles then it should hopefully be possible to plug them in simultaneously without needing to go using two infoboxes (for instance Vinnie Jones could have one infobox with both a football and an actor plugin). But we're getting ahead of ourselves here: that's just what the system should be capable of, and we're a long way off even considering that kind of proposal yet. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I do like the idea of consolidating infoboxes. The length is obviously a counter-argument, but presumably that's the purpose of the module idea (which I don't quite get conceptually, but I'm getting there.) :) My only hope is that, whatever's done, it won't be too confusing technically for the non-technically-minded to handle. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 23:57, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Example

Just for the sake of demonstrating how easy this is, I've added support for subclassing to {{infobox chef}} (one of the templates Andy has been pushing to get merged here). So any article on a chef can now use {{infobox person}} and include the chef-specific data by including {{infobox chef}} as a module. Andy, fancy drumming up a sandbox to demonstrate the result? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:58, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Done, on Jamie Oliver. I encountered two issues. Firstly: do fields like education, website and spouse belong on the main Person infobox, or the chef module (and how do we prevent duplication)? Secondly, the nesting of templates, especially closing braces, makes the introduction of errors more likely. I used some indentation to try to help other editors see what's what. I also had to move the fn class in the Chef template, as it shouldn't be used to wrap a sub-heading. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:24, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Nice work. Duplication is going to be an issue for a while; it makes sense to only use the module section for stuff which is only covered by that module (so culinary stuff for a chef). Subclassing does introduce more curly brackets (and thus a higher chance of error), but this is the simplest method we've come up with so far for minimising that. As for the microformats stuff, you're obviously qualified to make those decisions. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:25, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - I don't mean to come across as unduly critical; I'm just kicking the tyres. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:37, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Is there any reason to not create say {{Infobox person/culinary career}} and add that to {{Infobox chef}}? It would seem cleaner than messing around with the articles. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:36, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, using a live article as a test subject is perhaps a little questionable, but it seems to be be working fine. I don't see why you'd want {{Infobox person/culinary career}} to be anything other than a redirect to {{infobox chef}}... Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:26, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I was just thinking that one could start by switching the backend of {{Infobox chef}} to use both {{Infobox person}} and the new module, whatever you want to call it. If the new module was also {{Infobox chef}}, this would introduce recursion. I suppose {{Infobox person/culinary career}} isn't really necessary, since the module could just use {{Infobox}} directly if it were within {{Infobox chef}}. That is unless the end goal was to then substitute {{Infobox chef}}. What ever works, I just think the current live example is a bit complex for the average editor to parse. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:48, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah, but part of the reason why modules are good is that eventually it should be possible to use more than one at once. Ideally we want to encourage people to just use {{infobox person}} for any biography and then to plug in modules as they see fit based on the person's life. This isn't any more conceptually difficult in my mind than the present system whereby you have to pick the infobox type from the hundreds available and make do with whatever fields it supports. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:28, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I, too, envisaged what Chris describes. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:41, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Right, but in that case I would say that {{Infobox chef}} would be used only as a submodule, and never as a stand-alone infobox. My suggested path to migration is: (1) convert {{Infobox chef}} to use {{Infobox person}} with a submodule, (2) substitute all transclusions. That's all that I am suggesting here. My only question was about the name for the template which acts as a submodule. I think we are talking about the same thing here, just a bit of a miscommunication. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:06, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Aha. Right, yes, I get you. Sure, as far as the end game goes I think that's what we're heading for (assuming that the wider community agrees). I don't think we need to worry too much about that part right now; we've got a long way to go before we're close to that. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 06:59, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Further update

{{editprotected}}

Joseph Priestley is going to be a real test here (as will many Enlightenment types, really). Can we get another four modules lines added? Cheers. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:53, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed.

Hi Chris, it isn't clear what you want done, from looking at your request, the template source, and the Joseph Priestley article (and just so you know, I'm not an admin). Please feel free to resubmit a more specific request. twilsonb (talk) 14:47, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Sandbox updated. My bad: thought this was pretty straightforward. Re-enabling for sync. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:34, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Done. Although, I am looking forward to seeing why so many modules are necessary? Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:59, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

See user:Thumperward/Priestley. And I can think of a good few more who could do with the same treatment. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:25, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Replace this image

"Do not use Image:Replace this image male.svg, or other placeholder images; the proposal to use such placeholders has been rejected by the community."

Where is this discussion? So that I can link to it when removing such images. 117Avenue (talk) 04:45, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I didn't know, but here's what I found:

According to the last discussion at File talk:Replace this image male.svg#Remove images via bot and the following thread, there is no consensus no add more, and no consensus to remove all the existing ones.

According to Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Image placeholders#Summary, and the synopsis (in the orange bordered box) at File:Replace this image male.svg, any interested editors are meant to be discussing alternative solutions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Images and Media/Free. Nobody has started that discussion, it seems.

A bot request (Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/AmeliorationBot 2) ended with "Withdrawn by operator. I'll reopen this if there is, in future, a distinct consensus to do it."

The page Wikipedia:Image placeholders is tagged as historical and needing a rewrite. The talkpage has no discussion since Sep 2008.

So, I would suggest you start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Images and Media/Free about developing an alternative. Possibly it just needs a new (more professional looking and smaller) image, or some whole other solution, or to seek consensus for a bot request to remove existing images. -- Quiddity (talk) 05:59, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

So there is no set policy on them. Perhaps a rewrite to the documentation so that it doesn't sound like there is one? 117Avenue (talk)

Issue with biographical infoboxes

Please note this issue with biographical infoboxes and comment at that page. Thank you. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:55, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox person/Archive 8