Template talk:Infobox comics creator/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Family

Is there a way to add family information to these boxes, particularly a spouse...? ntnon (talk) 23:44, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

There is, but frankly, there should be very little reason, or need, for such a field.
For the most part the people this 'box is used with aren't in a position where publicly listing, or commentin on, theit spouses, parents, kids, grandkids, etc, is a good thing. Yes, there are people like the Pinis, Romattas, Buscemas, Kessels, and Hories where the familial connection is relevant, but they are the exceptions, not the rule.
- J Greb (talk) 01:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. I was thinking primarily that Melinda Gebbie, Leah Moore (and John Reppion) ought to be in Mr Moore's box, but I take your point that generally there oughtn't to be a need. ntnon (talk) 02:15, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
hrm...
First, the Alan Moore article uses {{Infobox Writer}}. And in that case it isn't one I'd argue for converting to this template. He, like Gaiman, Whedon, Smith, Metzler, and the like, has a body of notable work outside of comics.
Second, the template that is in place for that article does have fields for spouse(s), partner(s), children, and relative(s).
Last, while I can see why that 'box has those fields, I don't agree with it any more than I do to adding them here. It may be justifiable with mainstream writers, but this area is a much lower profile. - J Greb (talk) 02:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Area→occupation

I recommend the change of the "area" tag to "occupation" because "occupation" is more clear and also has precedent in other infoboxes.--Darknus823 (talk) 01:09, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Website

Worth having a parameter that allows you to add a link to their site? A lot of similar ones do and I was under the impression this one did too (hence why I came here to find out what it is). (Emperor 12:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC))

That may need some tinkering... - J Greb 14:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree Most infoboxs on individuals have a website parameter. I was just about to propose the same thing.--Darknus823 (talk) 00:55, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

It looks like it should work. Remember though: only 1 site... and not, emphatically not, auction houses or similar sites. - J Greb (talk) 01:18, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
That's great thanks. Vigilance is always the key (and it is worth checking the link itself from time to time in case someone has lifted a lapsed domain). (Emperor (talk) 02:21, 2 August 2008 (UTC))
Sorry to say it doesn't seem to work. Wouldn't it be simpler to just run it through {{official}}? Being labelled "official site" also has the advantage of people not trying to sneak other sites in as a 'best fit' where an official one doesn't exist. (Emperor (talk) 02:44, 2 August 2008 (UTC))
Had a pair of typos... should work now. - J Greb (talk) 03:02, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Good stuff. It works a treat. (Emperor (talk) 03:22, 2 August 2008 (UTC))

Merge into Infobox Person

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Nine-month discussion failed to achieve a consensus. -- Kraftlos (talk · contribs) 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I propose that this template be merged into {{Infobox person}} Most, if not all, of this template's fields are, I think, in the latter, apart from "major works", which can easily be added. The larger template also has many additional fields which may apply to Comic creators. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 14:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Oppose — {{Infobox person}} is a generic which should be used in cases where a specific 'box is not available. This box is designed for use with people working within a specific profession set, just like {{Infobox Actor}}, {{Infobox Writer}}, {{Infobox Gunfighter}}, or any other template currently listed at Category:People infobox templates.
    Further, if the argument for merging is "We can add a specific use field to the generic" then there becomes less and less for specific use biography infoboxes. Bluntly, it is possible to add fields and condition flags to an {{Infobox}} based template to allow it to cover all of the instance covered by the 254 infoboxes listed in the noted category and its subs. This is not a desirable direction to even hint that the biography 'boxes go.
    - J Greb (talk) 14:42, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support- On the grounds of simplicity why have an info-box where all of the fields exist in another. This would reduce the bureaucracy and make it simpler by having one info-box with more information about a person able to be added while retaining the information already deemed necessary.--Lucy-marie (talk) 14:56, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
    • One thing that hasn't been added to this template, but is/was a possibility is something that's been added to other templates under Category:Comic book infobox templates (which this is part of), is moving some of the categorization material into the infobox template. Something that would not be wanted on the generic 'box.
      And with regard to "bureaucracy" and "more information about a person able to be added". The first rings hollow since the idea of the bio-'boxes is to use the one that is the best primary fit to the subject. If this is merged, then the best primary for most of the articles isn't "Person". It becomes a toss up between "Writer" and "Artist". As for the second, it includes fields that are, for the vast number of biographies hosted on Wiki as well as those using this template, unneeded and some which verge on unethical requests for digging into the personal lives of the subject. "Simplicity" is sticking to what is relevant to the article, not using a format that includes "optional" fields that encourage adding extraneous information. - J Greb (talk) 16:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose -- This "simplification" would require a massive amount of rewriting of every practically every bibliographical article on Wikipedia. "If it ain't broke..." More than anything else, though, I'm annoyed at having the "It has been suggested that this article or section be merged into Infobox Person" warning at the top of a perfectly good article, giving the impression that the article is unimportant or seriously flawed. Matt Thorn (talk) 15:10, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
    • No such rewriting would be required. Why do you think it would? If you don't like how the merge template works, please feel free to discuss that, and propose changes, in the appropriate talk pages. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 15:41, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
      • Actually I kind of like the fact that due to how the merge template was applied you put the announcement on 882 articles — every single one that the template is transcluded to. It's a good indication of just how well used this infobox template is. Even if it does give the impression that all 882 of those articles are intended, in whole or in part, to be moved to Infobox person, it's a damn good way of alerting everyone that may be interested. - J Greb (talk) 16:08, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
      • As J Greb noted, trying to create a one-size fits all biographical Infobox would entail adding an absurd number of use fields to the generic "Person" Infobox, which article editors will then have to dig through and choose from. And many such fields would overlap, yet not be completely interchangeable, forcing editors to choose between ambiguous fields, which would in turn lead to arguments about which field name to use in a given article. I still don't see the upside to a merge. I'll say it again: If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Matt Thorn (talk) 03:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
        • Reductio ad absurdum. Nobody is "trying to create a one-size fits all biographical Infobox"; but in the past a number of infoboxes mostly similar to {{Infobox person}}, as is this one, have been successfully merged into that parent infobox. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 10:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
          • Apologies. I didn't mean to pull a reductio ad absurdum. I literally thought that was what was being proposed. I see your point. Matt Thorn (talk) 16:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose following both of J Greb's arguments. (Emperor (talk) 23:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC))
  • Oppose I agree with the opposees here, also because this template is heavily used by Wikiproject Anime and Manga where I tend to edit. This would cause big headaches that are completely unnecessary. This isn't a simplification, this just removes a valuable tool and asks us to use a less specific tool. --Kraftlos (talk) 09:47, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Please will you explain (i) why the fact that "his template is heavily used by Wikiproject Anime and Manga" is a reason not to merge and (ii) what "big headaches" a merge would cause? Thank you. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:00, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Actually, the fact that it is heavily used is a good reason, the headache it will cause is that people are going to have to go though the 882 and rename the template properties that don't match exactly, this will waste time that should be used for improving articles. If we keep the templates the way they are, users will continue to have a specific template for this task that has words that are worded specifically for the task and they will not have to look through a list of fields that don't apply or are worded strangely for this application. Maintaining a separate template allows for faster and more precise use of the template. The simple fact that these templates are similar isn't justification enough for a merge, of course they're similar, they're related. --Kraftlos (talk) 10:25, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
I asked you to please explain, not simply assert as fact. If the merge is done properly (which it will be) nobody will have to do any such thing (As I explained on 24 August; see above); any parameters with different names will be catered for. Please explain how a separate template is "faster" and "more precise" (bearing in mind that similar mergers have not made template use "slower" or "less precise"). Since you're not being asked to do the merge, it's not for you to say whether or not the time of the people willing and keen to do so will be "wasted". Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:17, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Hey, don't be a jerk. I did explain. If you don't like what I have to say, that's completely different. --Kraftlos (talk) 19:17, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Lay off the abuse! (see WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA). If you explained, please point to where you did so. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:06, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
I find it ironic that I address your uncivil tone and I get refered to WP:CIVIL. Read where you claim i didnt explain, then read one response up. There is my explaination. --Kraftlos (talk) 23:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
"the fact that it is heavily used is a good reason" is an unexplained assertion. "this will waste time that should be used for improving articles" is an unexplained assertion. "Maintaining a separate template allows for faster and more precise use of the template." is an unexplained assertion (two, in fact). "The simple fact that these templates are similar isn't justification enough for a merge" is also an unexplained assertion. Your supposed explanation made no reference at all to "Wikiproject Anime and Manga". Granted "the headache it will cause is that..." was an attempt at an explanation, but sadly it was bogus. I have not been uncivil; that was you. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:38, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
You were in fact the one being uncivil, and I called you on it. You've been taking a condecending tone this entire time, and it isnt helping your case.
Time wasted: either by bot or manually converting the templates that wont work with a simple redirect because not all the parameters are there, unless you are adding parameters to infobox person (which you claimed you werent).
They're similar. I dont see anything confusing here. Similar doesnt necessarily imply duplication.
Headache - (figure of speech) the aggrivation associated with the work involved with this merge. I dont think the person doing the merge could do all the work themselves, even with a bot.
it is used heavily (fact) - indicates thay this is working as it is. If it isnt broken, dont try to fix it. I think all of this could have been understood from my previous explanation. --Kraftlos (talk) 03:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Leaving aside your fallacious allegations and unfounded supositions; nobody is proposing a "simple redirect"; a merger is what is proposed; which would then ensure that a redirect would work. There was no "previous explanation"; and I note taht you have still not explained why the fact that "this template is heavily used by Wikiproject Anime and Manga" is a reason not to merge. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:38, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Obviously this wasn't my main argument, however it is clear that 1. if a template is heavily used, and 2. it is changed/redirected/merged whatever you happen to do, then it leads us to the conclusion that the heavily used template will cause harm on a larger scale if it were to break. So it is not because the project uses it, but because of the heavy use, that it shouldn't be merged. Merging is generally encouraged when something is relatively unused or poorly constructed; what you are proposing is the merging of a perfectly good template that is well-used. Thank you. --Kraftlos (talk) 10:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for finally providing an explanation. The fact that a template is heavily used is not a valid reason not to merge it, as earlier, successful, mergers of "perfectly good" heavily used templates demonstrate. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits
  • Strong Oppose — Apples and Oranges, keep them separate. --Xero (talk) 16:46, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

Andy, can you please, as the nom, explain why, aside from what feels like IDONTLIKEIT, there is a need to merge an infobox that is used on 1100+ (yes, the usage has gone up since you started this) articles into a more generic one? Also keep in mind that the functionality of this template does have the potential to go beyond what the "generic" does. Part of this is in place with addition of logical arguments under the "area" field in October. - J Greb (talk) 15:54, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
The number of instance of this template is a red herring. The hypothetical future development of this template is a red herring. As is it stands, this template is a near duplicate of {{Infobox person}}, causing additional overheads in maintenance, and potential confusion for editors where minor differences exist. Current practise is to merge similar templates to overcome such issues, and such mergers work well. The area parameter is redundant to {{Infobox person}}'s occupation - I note that there is already a proposal to rename the former as the latter. Now, are there any reasons to keep this template is it is, other than ILIKEIT, NOTINVENTEDHERE or OWN? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 17:52, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Sorry Andy, but I do tend to think that the scope of use is relatively important. If a 'box is being widely used without confusion, which seems to be the case here, then it is stable and useful and need not be folded into another template.
And if usage isn't important, then the pare down as propose would appear to want to collapse to just 1 base infobox for all bios with "specialty tack ons" for things like politics or sports. And before you jump, there are projects that have structured infoboxes to do just that. See the anime and manga infoboxes.
As for the functionality issues... did you actually look at what was added in October or are you just looking at "area=occupation" and not going any farther?
- J Greb (talk) 18:40, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
And It really doesn't matter if you can make it work, the fact remains that users will be forced to use a generic template where half the options on the list don't apply to the given situation or are generically worded. Bottom line: it's not going to help anyone to merge this template; and right now its 2 support, 4 oppose. --Kraftlos (talk) 19:21, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
And by slower, I dont mean the server. I mean the user who has to apply the template. I understand how it works server-side, I have a MediaWiki site. --Kraftlos (talk) 01:21, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Support I'm not seeing any particular reasons why this shouldn't be merged into {{Infobox Person}}. It is my opinion that we have far too many biography infobox (117 at present) and it causes unnecessary confusion. It also doesn't help that each type of bio infobox has a different look and field order instead of a unified look and field order. To simplify matters, these infoboxes should be rolled into one general purpose infobox, and this one is as good a place to start as any. --Farix (Talk) 14:33, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
    I'll ask the question again: How does this infobox in particular create confusion? - J Greb (talk) 15:21, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
    Because it adds to the 117+ other bio infoboxes that the editor has to choose from, all of which behave differently from each other. It's already problematic enough when manga creators use either {{Infobox Person}} , {{Infobox Artist}}, {{Infobox Author}}, or {{Infobox comics creator}} based on the personal preferences of the editor who placed the original infobox on the article. --Farix (Talk) 23:29, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
    I'm not sure that's a case of confusion so much as a lack of direction. Most of the bios have one or more Projects/Work groups looking over them. Part of the reason for that is to try and keep a degree of standards for the articles. For infoboxes that breaks down into a rough guideline of "Articles related to this Project/Work goup use this/these infobox(es). Use care though as another 'box may be more relevant." That doesn't mean that an editor will either be aware of that MoS/guideline or that a specific 'box exists. And just because a more general template is initially placed doesn't 1) make it wrong (cases like Alan Moore jump to mind where the writing of comics has become a lesser [art of his overall writing) and 2) mean it the 'box cannot be changed out for a more specific one. The only thing with the later is that editors may actually have to hash out why a particular 'box should be used.
    As for the situation with the manga professionals... honestly, a few things come to mind:
    • I'm not sure if/when the Manga/Anime Project pointed to this template as preferred for the bios.
    • Artist or Writer may be more correct when reading over the material in the article. Especially if the person is better known for their non-manga work.
    • The bare bones template is a "safe" choice for an editor to place a needed 'box but let someone else with a better handle on the topic and/or more aware of the 'box options to "upgrade" to a more specific one. - J Greb (talk) 00:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
    If the concern is about consistency wouldn't the solution be to create a central template that could be the base of the sub boxes that would have a standard layout and order for the simple parameters like name, birth dates and deaths and allow other parameters to then be added. As it stands neither this template or the writer one (the two person infoboxes I use the most) can be simply switched to the person template without loosing functionality but it may be possible to address your concerns with a more flexible person template. (Emperor (talk) 15:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC))
    Isn't that the whole point of {{Infobox Person}}, a singular template so that all bio infoboxes will be formatted and behave the same? --Farix (Talk) 23:29, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
    That isn't how that template works now though - it would need a feature like {{navbox}} which would allow extra fields and parameters to be passed through. That way the various specific infoboxes would then run through the one main template and add their own parameters as required. It seems like the best solution. (Emperor (talk) 04:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC))
    I'm not seeing how having 100+ biographical infobox templates is a bad thing. If a template was particularly bad or wasnt being used, I could see merging it. This one is working well and is used in 1100+ articles without any problems. Other templates existing isnt a strong enough reason for a merge, and if your problem lies with those other templates, then you should focus your attention there, not here where there doesnt appear to be a problem. --Kraftlos (talk) 23:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
    I do because it is frequently confusing in determining which infobox to use, and given that this infobox doesn't provide anything that isn't already in {{Infobox Person}}, except for the awards field, which could be added with an appropriate {{editrequest}}. Near duplication is a very good reason to merge two templates. And there is nothing preventing those 1100+ transclusions to be converted over to {{Infobox Person}}. --Farix (Talk) 23:29, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
    Not necessarily converted; just redirected (though the former could be done, by a bot, if desired). Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:38, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
    Actually Andy, given where at least part of this discussion has gone and some of the ongoing work with this template does make it necessary to look at how to run conversions so that material embedded in and/or dependant on the existing template isn't lost. - J Greb (talk) 00:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
    That simply isn't the case. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:38, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
    Really?
    So the the generic template is set up to automatically use {{Lifetime}}, {{Birth date and age}}, {{Birth date}}, {{Death date and age}}, and {{Death date}}? Or is open to having that functionality added?
    And it is also open to having fields added to support the automatic inserting of categories related to the specific comics professions? Or is there a way to salvage that information when this template goes away?
    And then there are the logical fields related to that autocatting also populating the "Area(s)" (which I guess would become "Occupation(s)") section of the 'box. Is the generic template open to having that narrowly use code added?
    And that's just this template. What about the ones for politicians? Or various professional sports? Since this is more an more looking like the start of collapsing all the bio infoboxs down to just the one, there's an awful lot of "specialty" content that the Person box is going to have to be re-jigged to handle.
    Oh... and before I forget... the comment I made about "specialty tack ons" appears to have been premature. Anime/Mang get away with it because they haven't converted to {{Infobox}}. Stacking the templates can create page layout issues which A/M avoids by sticking with stacked "tables". - J Greb (talk) 23:27, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
It's confusing to me to have a list of 44+ parameters, having a specific template allows users to disregard irrelevant parameters and is thus faster and easier to use. If users are unsure of which template to use, they can always use infobox person or ask at the appropriate wikiproject; for example we have these templates listed on Anime Project's biography workgroup. --Kraftlos (talk) 03:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Why shouldn't (say) a cartoonist's employer, net worth or resting-place be recorded alongside more specific cartoon-y fields? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
There may be grounds to include employer(s)/publisher(s)/syndicate(s) (remember some of the people covered are effectively self-employed). But as to the rest... it hits the same problem as including "Family": by and large these are not public figures. Care should be taken not to craft a template, or force the use of a template, that encourage editors to pry into the private lives of private individuals. Additionally there is a question of "Is it notable?", which in most cases, it isn't. - J Greb (talk) 23:27, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

It would help me a great deal if the nom could give a detailed explanation of exactly what they plan to do. We've been going back and forth and each time you counter our argument with "no that's not what will happen". We can't address your proposal if you haven't clearly stated one. Can you give a detailed explanation of what exactly will occur in this merge, rather than talking down to us for not understanding you. And if you have indeed already explained then it should be an easy task to put that explanation down here. Thank you. --Kraftlos (talk) 10:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Support there are so many bio templates already at {{Infobox person}} that it makes little sense to have 'lone outriders' not within the sphere of influence, and outside of the reach of maintenance and update. During the merge, it would make sense to get rid of parameters such as "yob", "mob", "dob", "yod", "mod", "dod". Ohconfucius (talk) 07:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Ohconfucius, please don't remove this fields from the infobox, like you did on André Juillard, without adding a replacement. You just removed the date of birth and age of this author from his infobox because it "interfered" with the dmy format. While it did use the mdy format, I don't see how that is "interfering" with anything. Fram (talk) 08:04, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
      • I think I see where Ohconfucius' issue on the dates hinged, and the codee for the 'box has been fixed for that the current paramaters work to generate that date format change. - J Greb (talk) 12:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Infobox person is too generic, so you get a huge number of parameters which are of very little or no use to comics creators. Merging infoboxes back into Person will only make this worse. Of the current 46 parameters, only 20 (at a stretch) are useful to us, and on the other hand at least 10 currently used parameters from Comics are missing. I am all for proposals to make the infoboxes more similar (e.g. for dates), but not for merging them. Fram (talk) 08:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Section break 2

So I realize that on Wikipedia we don't use voting to determine things, but this discussion has stalled out twice. I think that if there was a strong opinion toward merging these templates, it would have already happened. While we have four firm opinions that the infoboxes should be merged, there are at least twice as many opposed; this at least shows that there isn't a clear consensus as to what to do here. That leaves us with a default of not taking any action. I think that we should put this discussion away and if the nom is still interested in re-address this in six months or so, we talk again about making changes. For now this just looks like a no consensus. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 12:04, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Looking forward to Mergeto tag being removed from "Infobox comics creator" page. (I like "Infobox comics creator") --EarthFurst (talk) 21:40, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Problem

FYI. We seem to be getting an extra: {{#if:||

You can see it Grant Morrison or any other page using this template. (Emperor (talk) 04:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC))

Fixed... It should slowly work its way back through the pages. - J Greb (talk) 11:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

imagesize= problem

After today's change (April 6, 2009), the template seems to no longer properly honor the "imagesize=" parameter; see, e.g., Joe Phillips. Hqb (talk) 20:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

  • I've reverted back to a revision that works for the minute. Hiding T 22:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I've worked out the problem. Any article which uses an imagesize value ending in px breaks the new code. Not sure what the workaround is. Hiding T 23:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

For groups of many artists

Should this template still be used even if it is for groups of mangaka? It looks kind of strange when it says that the group was born on a certain date. I want to use it for Clamp. AngelFire3423 (talk) 16:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to go out on a limb... but wouldn't that, in essence, be a studio? If so, then something like UDON, using {{Infobox Company}} would currently be more appropriate. There is also {{Infobox publisher}}...
It may be worthwhile to cobble up {{Infobox comics studio}}, it would at least allow "prominent/notable" members of the studio to be listed.
- J Greb (talk) 23:21, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I suppose I could use the {{Infobox Company}}, although it feels a little wrong to label them as a company. Thanks for the response. AngelFire3423 (talk) 16:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Since the group of four acts do not have a logo and act much like a single artist rather than a company. AngelFire3423 (talk) 16:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Also, I would like to put a caption on the image, however with the logo and image parameters for {{Infobox Company}} and {{Infobox publisher}}, there seems no way to do that. AngelFire3423 (talk) 16:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough... I've taken a swing at {{Infobox comics studio}} using UDON and Clamp as examples. - J Greb (talk) 23:33, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks alot. AngelFire3423 (talk) 00:13, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Categorisation

This template hides DEFAULTSORT in a hidden Lifetime! All articles are maintained so they have DEFAULTSORT at the end. I think we have to remove "sortkey" because it's a very sneaky parameter that causes DEFAULTSORT conflicts. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:22, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Um... "sortkey" is putting the default into the lifetime template. And how it is being used in the template does not generate a different pipe sort from the default.
That being said... there may be a need to reduce the number of time "sortkey" is used within the template. One case being the redundant piping. - J Greb (talk) 17:40, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Why do that? It's better to have DEFAULTSORT/Lifetime outside any template. A bot right now it's adding DEFAULTSORT in all articles that cannot find it. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:06, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
The basic premise is that the there are a set of categories that should always be present with the articles. These include the "jobs" and the "Lifetime" pair. Including the cats and "Lifetime" within the template ensures the cats are present.
IIRC, there is, or was, a problem with DEFAULSORT missing the cats generated by the infobox template. I'm not sure if this was a case of the categories being "hidden" or the DS being well after the template, but the result was that the DS was not being applied.
And I'm not entirely sure it's a problem that a bot is adding a 2nd DS, as long as it isn't a different term.
- J Greb (talk) 19:07, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
I think DEFAULTSORT has to be visible. There thoughts to take it out from Lifetime as well. Why hide categories and DDEFAULTSORT in a template? This makes it more difficult for editors not familiar with the template to locate them and update them. It took me 3 minutes to find where the defaultsort was coming from. Other infoboxes as infobox person, infobox actor don't have something similar. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:01, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
The DS in or out of a template may be a non-issue. I tweaked the template to get rid of the piped sorting and ran a test on Art Adams and Mike Grell. The up shot is the coding in "Lifetime" looks to be working.
As for why have the cats in there in the fist place... consistency and ease. The same fields that sets up the birth, death, nationality, and areas of work make it easy to plop in the appropriate categories. And using the template keeps that, and the ordering, consistent across articles.
And aside from "Lifetime", which could wind up putting 2 cats constantly first just lie putting "Lifetime" before the cats currently does, I really don't see this approach as applicable to either {{Infobox Actor}} or {{Infobox Person}}. The grouping looked at with this template has a much more limited set of potential fields w/ cats than those two.
- J Greb (talk) 22:11, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Ease for you not for me :) It took me some time to find why the categories i was adding with HotCat didn't work. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:49, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Walk me through that one... I don't use HotCat so I'm not sure what the issue is. I had assumed that it just adds the [[Category... you specify to the bottom of the coding. I don't see why they shouldn't pick up. It may not sort the way you'd expect though. I would think that deleting with HotCat would be the problem since the Java script can't pull out of any template. - J Greb (talk) 23:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

The things are worse than I first thought, In this version the article is categorised under Category:Year of birth missing (living people) even if the birth/death categories exist. I'll remove "sortkey" since DEFAULTSORT can do the job. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:14, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Few things...
  • "sortkey" hasn't been entered into the template markup on Vince Alascia.
  • As per Template:Infobox comics creator#Categories, "yob" and "yod" fields need to be in the markup for the template to generate the "Year of birth" and "Year of death" cats with Lifetime. With out those fields, it generated the "Living" and "Year of birth missing" cats.
  • "yob" and "yod" aren't presnet in the template markup on Vince Alascia.
So, if the fields are entered... The result clears the problem.
- J Greb (talk) 18:38, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
This means extra work and that very few people are familiar with this template. Btw, Pete Alvarado has the same problem. I think that is easier to just have DEFAULTSORT and YOB/YOD cats at the bottom as in every other article about people. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:43, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Let me check something... - J Greb (talk) 20:20, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
And a stop gap is in place. - J Greb (talk) 20:30, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
I think this minimises the problem. Great work! I really appreciate the effort you do But I still think this tends to be one of the most difficult infoboxes ever. Don't you? I don't find any reason to include this information in an infobox. Not all comics creators have an infobox.Moreover, comics creators are just a subset of... people. :) Since we have tools to handle all people at once, why get into troubles? -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I came over this template again today. It also assumes that the person is alive if nothing is entered. This infobox is useful for some of it entries but I strongly suggest that we remove yob/yod/dob/dod/etc. and have a bot run to fix this thing. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:46, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Which article? For the life of me I cannot see where you ran into problems based on your contribs. That is unless you didn't edit the article.
And yes, the assumption is based on this:
{{#if:{{{birthdate|}}}{{{deathdate|}}}|
{{#if:{{{yob|}}}{{{yod|}}}|
{{Lifetime|{{{yob|}}}|{{{yod|}}}|{{{sortkey|}}}}}|
{{DEFAULTSORT:{{{sortkey|}}}}}
[[Category:Infobox YoB discrepancy|{{PAGENAME}}]]
}}|
{{Lifetime|{{{yob|}}}|{{{yod|}}}|{{{sortkey|}}}}}|
}}
And that makes a lot of sense - without some indication of a date of death, the assumption is that the person is still alive. "yod" does not have to be entered to down the "Living person" cat, though it will. If all 4 fields are empty, Entering anything in "deathdate" or "birthdate" will shut off the embedded {{Lifetime}}.
I'm sorry if that is more work than just "Hotcat"ting, but it is the way the infobox is set up. And frankly, if you are adding year of birth and/or year of death categories, you should also be updating the infoboxes - if they autocat or not.
- J Greb (talk) 16:26, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I still don't understand. Why I have to this extra job for comic creators? We have yob/yod cats, sometimes we have persondata as well. Why keep the information in an infobox? -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

ps My example is Michael Lark. Living people was already there and the infobox was empty. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:34, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
OK... you've confused me now... by all appearance Michael Lark should be catted under Category:Year of birth missing (living people) and Category:Living people, be it automatically by the infobox or by an added Hotcat, since there is absolutely no mention of his date of birth or that he has died anywhere in the article. What you did there was to, in essence, confirm the categorization when you used Hotcat. With that article you seem to be complaining about a non-issue.
And IIRC, when the 'box was converted to the template base, there was microformatting - persondate I think - that was carried over, and which other bio infoboxes update as well. Keeping the information in the infobox allows 3, or 4 depending on how you count, things to be done with one entry:
  • Fill in the appropriate, nutshell information in the infobox
  • Appropriately categorize the article - without having to know exactly what the category is called
  • Appropriately update the microformatting
  • (the odd one out) Consistently format the BoD and DoD displays in the infobox
- J Greb (talk) 16:59, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Gary Friedrich appears in the Category:Year of birth missing (living people). -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:44, 4 July 2009 (UTC) ...and tenths more. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:14, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I beg for removal of these parameters from the infobox. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:19, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Yup. And it appears that the article is incorrectly catted into 1943 births - no where in the article is his date of birth mentioned in any form.
Remember, with A BLP everything needs a source. Inclusion in a definitive category has to be based on sourced information in the article. And year of birth is a definitive item, "living" or "alive" is a basic assumption.
As painful as this may to grasp, the parameters are serving a valid function. Even if it means that, as a editor cleaning up BLP articles, you have to actually look at the article to determine if the information within the article justifies the categories and/or which ones need to be fixed/amended/removed. Removing the parameters will only succeed in hiding the greater problem.
- J Greb (talk) 22:58, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
If someone wanted to add a birth category the most natural would be to add manually or using Hotcat the 1943 births and not editing an infobox. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:16, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
I'll repeat: Adding just the "Year births" category to an article without the information existing in the article in any manner is deliberately miss categorizing the article.
If you are going to add the "Year births" category to such an article, you must add the information into the article. That means it goes into the lead and the infobox. At that point it matters not one wit if the 'box auto cats or not.
I'll also repeat: Since the Infobox is supposed to nutshell the information in the article, having it provide some type of flag when an article is putting a without the article being fully updated is a good thing. Editors reviewing such articles need to do one of two things:
  1. Remove the "births" or "deaths" category as unsupported by the article, or
  2. Edit the article and infobox to include the information if they have some reliable source that supports it.
And as pointed out previously, putting anything in the "birthdate" will shut off the embedded life time categories and flag the article for someone else to look at. You don't have to use the "yob"/"yod" fields if you do not like them.
- J Greb (talk) 13:34, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Since the yob/yod categories are not hidden categories I would prefer them to be visible in the article's code as in all other articles. Since we are only two people participating in this one, it's difficult to reach a consensus! Your experience comes from working with this specific template and mine from working with biographies of persons. I was thinking to add somehow more peopl to express their opinion on this. Friendly, Magioladitis (talk) 16:39, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

In your experience with working with other bios, what is done if an article is catted both with the hidden "Year of birth missing" and a visible "Year births" category for a BLP?
Is "Year of birth missing" removed?
Is "Year births"?
Is the article reviewed at all in making this decision?
If the article isn't reviewed, it sounds like there is a fundamental problem with the procedure being used.
And in kicking it around a bit, I find it interesting that you are pushing the issue here, yet leaving it unmentioned on {{Lifetime}} which also prevents the "Year births" cats from actually showing in the code. Or is that because "Lifetime" is itself generally visible in the cat list?
- J Greb (talk) 17:41, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary break (catting)

I tend to agree with Magioladitis here. The parameters here make general usage more difficult and less consistent with other articles and infoboxes. Garion96 (talk) 18:10, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm still having trouble seeing that.
At worst I can see two things being applied twice to the articles:
  • DEFAULTSORT - either in a case of use of this infobox and a direct call for DS or in the use of this 'box and Lifetime.
  • One of a handful of categories - for more or less the same reasons.
Neither of those situations seem to be a "bad" things in and of themselves, just redundancy.
The rub I am seeing, and pardon me if I'm misconstruing this, is a case of "I want to categorize but not have to look at or edit the article."
Since the patch to prevent the infobox to use "Lifetime" if anything is present in the "birthdate" and/or "deathdate" fields, the problem seems to be when nothing is updated in the infobox but a "Year births" category is present. As far as I can tell that isn't an issue with the infobox coding but with something missing from the article - either the dob is mentioned in the article but was never added to the nutshell information or the article has had a category directly added that isn't supported by the information a reader would find in the article.
Is there something else here that I'm missing?
I think it's the WP:KISS principle. Friendly, Magioladitis (talk) 20:31, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
It may be a difference in perspective on "simple"... "short" you're right, it ain't.
Two questions...
  1. Has there been an issue with instances where the yob and yod fields are present?
  2. Is there, potentially, any issue with a "basic" and "advanced/additional fields" docs page split? Especially if the "basic" set of fields avoids inserting {{Lifetime}}?
- J Greb (talk) 21:05, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
I've found the infobox to be very useful and actually makes it much easier to add birth and death information (and keep it consistent). It also futureproofs categorisation - for example if we want "American comic book inkers" we need only tweak the template.
The problem seems to be robots or other tools for quick editing wanting to add defaultsort and categories to (or at least flag the article as uncategorised, when it is), this seems to be a problem with the robot and/or tools rather than a problem with the template. (Emperor (talk) 13:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC))
My concerns are about uniformation. Comic creators have a subset of peoples and they have to follow the same rules with all other people articles. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Can you point to the MoS/guideline/policy page(s) that delineate what can and cannot be in an infobox, biography or otherwise? - J Greb (talk) 21:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
I think I explained my argument. OF course we can have tenths of different away to include categories but I would prefer if we had only one. This helps editors/bots/programs to locate them. I would prefer if infoboxes didn't have any hidden categories. I don't know any specific policy/essay on that other than WP:KISS. I would try to find one if you think this can support my argument. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Another problem with DEFAULTSORT Wendy and Richard Pini was picking up multiple DEFAUTLSORTs . Rich Farmbrough, 08:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC).

When?
Looking at the page prior to your pass, that would be this edit, there is onlt 1 DS term in use - Pini, Wendy - from the infobox and the later applied DS. No red warning though.
The biggest issue with that article is that, effectively, Richard Pini is ignored for categorization. Best case would be for a pair of redirects to house the {{Lifetime}} material.
- J Greb (talk) 16:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
There seems that they are a lot of editors who don't agree with these entries in the infobox. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
To be honest, I'd prefer the simple "I don't like it. I think it's a bad idea." to stating a problem has occurred where none is evident. And considering that none of the 1500+ articles hosting this template are showing up in Category:Pages with DEFAULTSORT conflicts, it seems pretty clear the problems have yet to occur. - J Greb (talk) 17:36, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Editors already expressed their opinion about these fields. I think this a strong evidence that these fields are a bad idea. -- Magioladitis (talk) 04:02, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
There is a difference between "I think it's wrong/a bad idea/foolhardy" and stating "It's causing problems."
Yes, I get the point that there is a dislike for the redundancy. I also get the point that having to look at a 'bot run to make sure it isn't picking up false positives is a hassle. Got that.
Simple redundancy though does not create a problem unless 1) there is, by an MoS, a set place in the cat list where Living persons, <Year> births, and <Year> deaths belong and/or 2) the second, or later, occurrence of DS is different from the sortkey field.
Now there is a suggestion I'm going to ask Rich about below that would pretty much moot this since the Lifetime template would absolutely need to be removed at that point, so hold on. - J Greb (talk) 16:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The thing is it is completely un-necessary, even vandalistic. Of the 1580 articles at least 1498 have a DEFAULTSORT already. Examining the first random one without Gregory Wright (comics) his categories and DEFAULTSORT have been remove, presumably in furtherence of the infobox swallowing all the functionality. These are going to appear to robots as articles without categories and get tagged as such. They will also get their DEFAULTSORTS and birth/death cats added back. It's a great idea, and one that has crossed most of our minds when seeing the dates duplicated 4 or 5 times in an article. Unfortunately it just won't work unless it is adopted universally across the biog infoboxes - the dates part I mean - even then there are tens of thousands of biog articles that don't have infoboxes. Rich Farmbrough, 07:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC).

Yes look like most of these were Emperor ripping out stuff as the massive wave of infobox installation took place after the suggestion to merge. <sigh> Rich Farmbrough, 07:33, 2 September 2009 (UTC).
Rich, looking at the AWB message that's popped up on your run through the bios I've got to ask: What exactly does "Subst template when there is already a DEFAULTSORT." mean? My hunch is that you're going through and adding "subst:" to any/all occurrences of {{Lifetime}}. Is that correct?
If so, wouldn't it be a good idea to suggest that the template mandate substitution? I know this isn't something that is generally done with article space templates, but looking at where you and Magioladitis are coming from, it would make sense. Lifetime is a good way to quickly get 3 things into the footer: DS and a selection of DoB/DoD related categories. Things that should be static for a fair amount of time. Without anything likely to change or need updating across all of the articles added by the template, this would seem an ideal candidate for mandatory substitution.
Actually... looking at that logic. That's something I would support and would be a reason to get the template out of this one. The only caveat I can think of is that the 'bot runs would have to be finished before the code for Lifetime is changed. Would one of you two like to make that suggestion on that template's talk page? - J Greb (talk) 16:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Completely agree. More complex comment which sounds a little negative follows. Rich Farmbrough, 06:12, 3 September 2009 (UTC).

Abitrary break ("subst:" issue)

Magioladitis has already. As have many others, and the template was rebuilt to allow for substing. Trouble is you can't just type "subst:" or you get a bunch of code, you have to put a parameter "subst=subst:" at the end. Now we are into it being too hard and needing a bot, which is fine (AWB actually does this as a core function). It still is a little vexed because of the number of articles which have a lifetime and a default sort, and because until the subst is done, on save AWB doesn't realis that there will be an(other) DEFAULTORT and cats, so it can't remove duplicates. Also it might correct the exisiting or provide a new DEFAULTSORT which disagrees with the new one. Today I have been testing some regexes which get around this. Just a question of getting consensus to use it on a a larger scale - and that might be hard. Rich Farmbrough, 06:12, 3 September 2009 (UTC).
hrm... Right... forgot about the "if" mess since the thing toggles multiple possibilities.
It looks though like Lifetime is getting pushed down the route of a "temporary" template - quick to add but eventually to be removed by it's components. As I said, that's something that in reflection I can support. - J Greb (talk) 15:48, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
The template doesn't appear to be adding the birth categories. Are these going to be put back in in a longer form (without using lifetime) because removing this completely is going to cause a lot of work on infoboxes that have been converted? (Emperor (talk) 17:22, 6 September 2009 (UTC))
What do you mean they have been converted? The categories should be in the article as categories at the bottom. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:28, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Emperor, Rich made a fairly good argument regarding the Lifetime template. The long & short of it is that LT is being treated as a "temp", at least by Rich and Magioladitis here, and it looks like that has a degree of consensus based on Rich's AWB runs.
Now, if thatisn't the case, or if someone has told him to stop the AWB runs on articles using just the Lifetime template, then I'm more than willing to put it back in here. If the tool is valid to be used even if an 2nd DS gets added, it's valid to have bundled into this template.
Beyond that, I'm tempted to put at least the YoB, YoD, and "Living" back in without relying on the template. That really is a "no harm, no foul" case. - J Greb (talk) 02:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
I insist that categories should only be added with a singkle way tat the bottom of the article. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Right... A situation that, at worst, affects category placement. The DS issue has been resolved, the inclusion of the cats does not bear on that. And frankly, having the categories placed by the template is a good step in making sure that they actually get added to the article and match the nutshell information. - J Greb (talk) 18:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

is broken?

It looks like this template is leaving a bit of stray garbage on the top of Gail Simone; could someone who knows this template stuff better than I please check and fix/delete whatever needs fixation or delettering? -- --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:40, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Naw, it's a hamfisted yank out... - J Greb (talk) 21:49, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

More broken stuff on Rumiko Takahashi in need of repair. Derekloffin (talk) 18:26, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Yup... mea culpa... missed a needed "}}". It should be fine now, just needing time to circulate. - J Greb (talk) 20:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Comics critic field?

I was just looing at Jerry Bails and it'd make sense to add this template to his article and thought it'd be an idea to have this as field under area. (Emperor (talk) 15:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC))

Categories included by templates

Note that categories included by templates breaks the "incategory" special feature of article searching, see WP:S#Additional_features. For example, the comic creator Dan O'Neil is currently a member of Category:American cartoonists and Category:Comic strip cartoonists. The first is (currently) included by template and the second is (currently) included directly in the article text. Currently, the article is erroneously NOT returned in the results of incategory:Irish_Americans incategory:American_cartoonists, but is successfully returned by the search incategory:Irish_Americans incategory:Comic_strip_cartoonists, the difference of course being the manner in which the category is included. Obviously, a good argument can be made that it is the searching that needs to be fixed. However, it's been this way for a considerable time and is probably going to remain this way for a while yet; the problem is technically hard at the scale that Wikipedia operates at (as I understand it). There's also an argument to be made that this search feature isn't important enough to override whatever benefits the proponents of including categories via templates believe exists. Finally, note that searching for categories uses a special index that often lags the article database by hours or even days; changes to articles that affect search results are not immediate. Studerby (talk) 22:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Automatic transclusion of Category:Living people

It is best that Category:Living people be always directly included in the article, for once it allows to make Special:AbuseFilter/189 work. But disabling the feature would require to detect and edit the articles on living people using it... Cenarium (talk) 22:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

That one actually makes some sense... IIUC that the filter uses a variant of the "incategory" mentioned above. I've pulled Category:Living people, though it is gong to need to be re-added to some of the articles. - J Greb (talk) 00:18, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Infobox_comics_creator/Archive_1&oldid=1096554175"