Template talk:Infobox artist/Archive 4
 | 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 |
Template-protected edit request on 1 April 2014
 | This edit request to Template:Infobox artist has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please replace with the current sandbox. Although the code looks very different, there are only three changes: an alternate "titlebackground" variable (avoiding US/UK "colo/u/r"); a tweak in the labels' linewrap and spacing management; and an nbsp in label2. Thanks, Sardanaphalus (talk) 10:18, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}}template. There are a lot of changes here, and some of them are controversial (adding variables are often objected to). Also, many of the extra formatting changes to the template source shouldn't be there, label and data need to have their own lines. I would clear out the sandbox, copy over the live template and only add the minimal to it for the functionality you request. — {{U|Technical 13}} (t • e • c) 12:56, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
- Done, with the addition of an nbsp to label1 but without inclusion of the alternate "titlebackground" name. Please now implement. Sardanaphalus (talk) 20:00, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Done Okay, I've performed that change for you. I'm also not opposed to adding the alternate "titlebackground" name. Just code it in as simply as possible without moving a bunch of other stuff around. :) — {{U|Technical 13}} (t • e • c) 13:45, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you. Sardanaphalus (talk) 00:49, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
DAAO record in infobox
We are undertaking a project of linking Wikipedia records for Australian artists to their biographies in the Design and Art Australia Online repository of biographies. This is an academic project with government funding.
We considered subclassing the artists' infobox but after discussion with other editors it was decided to add a single extra field (daao_record) to the artists' infobox instead.
We have created a sample record at Mike_Parr to demonstrate the usage. We are working on a small sandbox project to test the automatic linking of appropriate records.
- This would be better in the {{Authority control}} template, along with similar identifiers. At least for now - I have proposed that that template be merged into biographical infoboxes in the long run. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:25, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
- Agree, re the first bit anyway. The "example" has no infobox, so I'm puzzled. This should also be raised at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts which gets more viewers than here. Johnbod (talk) 11:40, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry I was called away ;) I'd not saved the edit on the example page. Thanks to both of you for your feedback. I'll follow those up. Queen Victoria (talk) 11:51, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
- The value entered as
|daao_record=in the Mike Parr article (after I fixed the formatting) is[http://www.daao.org.au/bio/mike-parr/biography/]. Since it uses his name rather than a UID sting, it may not be suitable as an{{Authority control}}identifier. How would they deal with another artist of the same name? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:20, 20 April 2014 (UTC) - I've added this as an issue to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Visual_arts#Add_DAAO_record_field_to_infobox as you suggested. There I outline the issues with using the DAAO as an Authority control. Shall we continue over there? Queen Victoria (talk) 12:49, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
- PS: Thanks for the fixes ;) Queen Victoria (talk) 12:50, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
- The value entered as
Template-protected edit request on 26 April 2014
This request has been processed. Continued discussion regarding the non-standard communication practices employed serves no constructive purpose. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:37, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
| ||
|---|---|---|
Change: | data1 = {{#if:{{{native_name|}}}|<span class="nickname" {{#if:{{{native_name_lang|}}}|lang="{{Check ISO 639-1|{{{native_name_lang}}}}}"}}>{{{native_name}}}</span>}} to: | data1 = {{#if:{{{native_name|}}}|<span class="nickname" {{#if:{{{native_name_lang|}}}|lang="{{{native_name_lang}}}"}}>{{{native_name}}}</span>}} to remove the ISO check. — lfdder 12:36, 26 April 2014 (UTC) — lfdder 02:41, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
|
Ethnicity
I would like to suggest a new optional parameter, ethnicity. To show its usefulness, consider for example the case of Italian or German artists active before 1861 (Italian unification) or 1871 (German Unification): they cannot be defined as being Italian/German nationals, since Italy/Germany did not exist at that time. In those cases, at present we use the parameter "nationality", giving to it the meaning of ethnicity. With the new parameter we could either leave the nationality parameter empty or use it to describe the state where they were citizen/subject (for example, in the case of Titian, the Republic of Venice). In all the other cases (when ethnicity and nationality coincide), we can ignore the ethnicity and fill only the nationality field. Alex2006 (talk) 08:13, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Simple proposal
Though some artists are self-taught, many improve their skills through education (e.g. Pratt Institute, CalArts, etc...) I would like to propose a parameter for education for addition to this template. Thanks. Warrenchase (talk) 15:19, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Infobox_artist and Infobox_person
| This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Even though the recent TfD discussion resulted in a speedy keep, there are still some gains to be made from changing the artist template into a wrapper for Template:Infobox_person so as to preserve a consistent look among all biographies. I've made a version in the Template:Infobox artist/sandbox (permanent) which pass through the in-common parameters to Infobox_person, while keeping the artist-specific ones available by using the module function. It turns out that only 3 artist parameters don't have an equivalent in Infobox_person. Here you can view the Template:Infobox artist/testcases. Some parameter names and row labels change slightly, but I've preserved support for the old parameters. Here is a list of the changes:
- Removed - bgcolour. Title colors is a deprecated practice and a holdover from very, very ancient infobox design. There's currently no documentation as to what colors to even use for what artists, so it leads to inconsistent appearance out in the articles. Birth name label is hidden, now part of Born
- Changed labels -
Movement is now Style,Works is now Notable work(s), Alma mater becomes unlinked, Training is now Education, Field is now Known for - Changed parameters (all old ones still supported) -
movement is now style,works is now notable_works, training is now education, field is now known_for - Infobox_artist specific - Patron(s) is now between Elected and Memorial(s)
This arrangement should make it easy to add more Infobox_person parameters to Infobox_artist, and also expand the artist-specific fields, if needed. -- Netoholic @ 22:47, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
- Added Style with
{{{style}}}
- Added Style with
- Updated to reflect change to infobox person that now supports Movement natively - new permanent link. Requesting the edit (WP:SILENCE). -- Netoholic @ 22:54, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
- Most at the TfD felt a merge would be inappropriate - that's not SILENCE. See Wikipedia:Edit_requests#General_considerations. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:14, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
- This isn't a merge, this template is still to be used separately and distinctly. The only impact is to make use of common elements for consistent look, while preserving the separate, unique functions. If you read those votes carefully, this exact wrapper option was brought up and echoed several times as an affirmative alternative to a full merge. -- Netoholic @ 02:49, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:29, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
- MSGJ, please revert until there is consensus for this change. Netoholic, I read the votes carefully, and you still cannot claim SILENCE as consensus given what happened there. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:00, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
- This solution seemed like a very reasonable conclusion to the discussion. Several people did mention converting it to a wrapper and no one explicitly opposed that. I got the distinct impression that some participants in that discussion did not appreciate/understand what was actually being proposed, and were merely piling-on. Anyway I will revert for now, but I would like to see some comments based on the merits of the proposal and the (very slight) noticeable differences in output, rather than some principled stand against using another template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:55, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
- so what is the specific objection to converting it to a wrapper? it's clearly not a merger, but allows for common information to be displayed in the same order in both templates. seems very uncontroversial, so long as no new fields are added, and no information is removed. Frietjes (talk) 13:40, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
- I think the wrapper is quite a logical and inevitable change to the template, supported by comments on the TfD, here, and on many other related templates. I posted the wrapper change and waited several days for any interested parties to raise objections. There still are none, just what seems to be a forgivable and minor technical misunderstanding on Nikkimaria's part about how a wrapper is different than a merge. --Netoholic @ 18:31, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
- Except that it isn't supported by the comments at the TfD - making it a wrapper was proposed by the person initiating the nomination, and most respondents said "oppose". You can ask them to clarify if you like, but there's no indication that by "oppose" they actually meant "support turning it into a wrapper". The only person other than the nominator who explicitly supported making this a wrapper was the one who proposed a rather...novel...early closure. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:05, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
- Do 'you', yourself, have any particular concern with the proposed change. I think we've given a lot of time for people to comment on my exact change, and I don't think we're going to get anywhere as you and I read the TFD completely different. Those here that have commented know the technical change is beneficial. The TFD seems like it was a pile-on by people more concerned with deletion of this template, and with trying to merge the unique parameters into infobox_person. Since my change does neither of these two things, unless you have a specific technical concern, I'd like to put this to change. We could go back and forth guessing at what people were actually voting oppose on, but its just delaying what is likely an inevitable solution here. Converting similar templates to wrappers is extremely common practice. --Netoholic @ 03:45, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
- Better idea: ask the people who participated in the TfD to get involved here. That way we can find out what they were actually voting on, rather than presuming that oppose really means support. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:30, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
- I am happy with the edit: consistent, logical, reasonable, as expressed by others above, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:15, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
- Even better idea: actually discuss whether the proposal improves articles or not. In favour of the change to a wrapper are the following:
- A template that is a wrapper for a more generic template has less maintenance - for example, upgrades such as rewriting into Lua need only be done to the generic template and then cascade automatically onto the wrapper templates;
- Templates that share common code achieve consistency in display and performance without any effort to "match" them between articles;
- Changes that would affect the common code are likely to be considered by a wider audience as they apply to the generic template, while changes that would only affect the wrapper template are more likely to be considered by those who have a particular interest in the differences that make the wrapper specific to their field.
- Whereas, looking at the test cases, some disadvantages can be seen:
- By changing from separate "Birth name" and "Born" rows to a single "Born" row, we lose data granularity - i.e. a parser has to extract the birth name from a larger block of data, rather than having the key-value pair "Birth name"-value readable directly. This is a cosmetic change that makes the data less available;
- Similarly, the "Website" row with its value has become disconnected - the key (label), "Website" now is on one row and its value is on a different row. That simply makes it harder for an automated parser for no good reason (not even cosmetic, as it actually looks worse in my humble opinion);
- Using the label "Notable work(s)" in place of "Works" results in the label column widening, leaving less room for the value data - this is a retrograde step as infoboxes really ought to reserve as much space as possible for the data, not for the labels.
- There may be other pros and cons and I'd encourage other editors to debate them here, but bleating about interpretations of a TfD that didn't even address this proposal is not a productive use of this page. --RexxS (talk) 14:44, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
- I'm in favour of the proposed change, and note that the objections appear to be misplaced procedural concerns, rather than substantive issues with the outcome. Of RexxS' three concerns: 1) Though there is one display field, there are still three input parameters (though I agree that this is suboptimal; however it could easily - and reasonably - be addressed at the person infobox's talk page); 2) is currently discussed on that infobox's talk page and 3) could also be addressed on the person infobox's talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:31, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
- Even better idea: actually discuss whether the proposal improves articles or not. In favour of the change to a wrapper are the following:
- I am happy with the edit: consistent, logical, reasonable, as expressed by others above, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:15, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
- Better idea: ask the people who participated in the TfD to get involved here. That way we can find out what they were actually voting on, rather than presuming that oppose really means support. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:30, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
- Do 'you', yourself, have any particular concern with the proposed change. I think we've given a lot of time for people to comment on my exact change, and I don't think we're going to get anywhere as you and I read the TFD completely different. Those here that have commented know the technical change is beneficial. The TFD seems like it was a pile-on by people more concerned with deletion of this template, and with trying to merge the unique parameters into infobox_person. Since my change does neither of these two things, unless you have a specific technical concern, I'd like to put this to change. We could go back and forth guessing at what people were actually voting oppose on, but its just delaying what is likely an inevitable solution here. Converting similar templates to wrappers is extremely common practice. --Netoholic @ 03:45, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
- Except that it isn't supported by the comments at the TfD - making it a wrapper was proposed by the person initiating the nomination, and most respondents said "oppose". You can ask them to clarify if you like, but there's no indication that by "oppose" they actually meant "support turning it into a wrapper". The only person other than the nominator who explicitly supported making this a wrapper was the one who proposed a rather...novel...early closure. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:05, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
- This solution seemed like a very reasonable conclusion to the discussion. Several people did mention converting it to a wrapper and no one explicitly opposed that. I got the distinct impression that some participants in that discussion did not appreciate/understand what was actually being proposed, and were merely piling-on. Anyway I will revert for now, but I would like to see some comments based on the merits of the proposal and the (very slight) noticeable differences in output, rather than some principled stand against using another template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:55, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
- MSGJ, please revert until there is consensus for this change. Netoholic, I read the votes carefully, and you still cannot claim SILENCE as consensus given what happened there. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:00, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
- This isn't a merge, this template is still to be used separately and distinctly. The only impact is to make use of common elements for consistent look, while preserving the separate, unique functions. If you read those votes carefully, this exact wrapper option was brought up and echoed several times as an affirmative alternative to a full merge. -- Netoholic @ 02:49, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
- Most at the TfD felt a merge would be inappropriate - that's not SILENCE. See Wikipedia:Edit_requests#General_considerations. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:14, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Discussion seems to have ended for now, with consensus for conversion to wrapper. Hopefully some of RexxS's well considered comments can be developed on the parent template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:48, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
White line
Several articles using this template correctly have a superfluous white line at the top; Karel Appel is an example. – Editør (talk) 20:59, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
- It's not the info box but rather the article. Remove the newline between the content and the info box and watch the magic happen.—cyberpower ChatOnline 21:02, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
- I don't think updating all artist pages is the best solution. Other infoboxes don't have this issue, such as {{Infobox museum}} in for example Rijksmuseum Amsterdam. – Editør (talk) 21:17, 7 July 2014 (UTC)